BU Research Blog | Research Integritiy

Category / Research Integritiy

October 27, 2018

Icons and Inspirations: Alan, Tamsin and Alex

PG research, Research Integritiy, writing Christopher Pullen

Left to right: Alan Sinfield, Tamsin Wilton and Alexander Doty

Whilst researching a new Level 5 ‘Media Perspective’ unit (Life Stores and the Media) for the Department of Media Production, I decided to discuss the concept of ‘dissident reading’ within the lectures, relating the work of Alan Sinfield in this area. In doing this, I not only checked out if our library had the relevant book Cultural Politics – Queer Reading, which we did, but also I thought that I would just check out (online) what Alan is working on now.

Alan Sinfield had been a catalyst in my research journey, as way back in 2004 when I was in the final stages of my PhD, Alan had invited me to speak at a research seminar workshop at the University of Sussex. I remember that Alan was a little critical of my interest in the ‘carnivalesque’, but largely supportive. That seminar offered me a great experience in developing my ideas for the eventual PhD at Bournemouth, and it provided me with a much-needed psychological boost, as the PhD submission date loomed. I remember at the time I had asked Alan some probing questions regarding his new research interests. Alan’s work was fundamental in developing gay and lesbian studies in theatre and popular culture. He replied that he was working on something new, concerning ageing. It was remiss of me to not follow up on this, despite having more contact with the University of Sussex in other areas later on, such as working with Sharif Molabocus who contributed to two of my edited collection books, and also working there as an external PhD examiner. On searching for Alan’s latest work, I discovered that he had passed away last year, aged 75.

In thinking through my meeting with Alan in 2004, I had not realized that soon after this he would retire, as Parkinson’s disease would effect his speech. Now I maybe understand Alan’s interest in writing about ageing, at a time when his life must have been changing. The loss of Alan also made me think about others in the LGBT and queer studies media research community who I have met that are no longer with us.

Before I was accepted to study my PhD at Bournemouth, I had applied to the University of the West of England. When the panel interviewed me, I met Tamsin Wilton, whose ground-breaking book was entitled Immortal, Invisible: Lesbians and the Moving Image. While I did not get the doctoral scholarship at UWE, Tamsin confided in me that her research was mostly done within her own time, suggesting that at that time the department thought her work was ‘too radical’. Tamsin passed away in 2006, only a few years after we met, and I remember thinking how much we have lost in her passing, her work was revolutionary, and she genuinely encouraged me to press on with my research, in times when LGBT studies were less popular.

Besides the loss of Alan Sinfield and Tamsin Wilton, I cannot forget the sudden loss of Alexander Doty. Similar to meeting Alan and Tamsin early in my research journey, I briefly met Alex when he was presenting at the feminist Console-ing Passions Conference in Bristol in 2001, a conference that I would eventually co-organise this year at Bournemouth. In 2001, I was studying for an MA at Bristol, and I had never been to an academic conference before, but we were required as students to help out. I remember attending Alex’s paper on the TV series Will and Grace, and I had a brief conversation with him over coffee. Somehow, I made some links between his ideas, and those that I was studying, and I am forever grateful to Alex for his work, and his non-pretentious demeanour. Although if I am honest, I was a little in awe of him, and at the time I could have never imagined that I could have published my academic work.

So I think, often we encounter inspirational researchers along the way, at conferences, seminars, symposiums, and even in interviews. For me, the loss of Alan Sinfield, Tamsin Wilton and Alex Doty, almost seems too much to bear, as clearly they had far more to offer, despite their remaining stellar work. In the manner where I discussed the legacy of Pedro Zamora (the HIV/AIDS activist) and the meaning of a life cut short, theoretical and political ideals potentially live on. Our task is not only to remember all that potential, but also to continue it in any way we can.

September 17, 2018

HE Policy update for the w/e 14th September 2018

international, Research Integritiy, Student Engagement jforster

Parliament rose for the party conference recess on Thursday so we can look forward to some inter-party challenging debate over the next few weeks. On Tuesday the Migration Advisory Committee delivered their verdict on international students – to the chagrin of many within the HE sector; and Wonkhe speculate about Generation Z as universities prepare to greet their new and returning students.

Review of post-18 funding delayed

There has been further speculation this week that the interim Augar report for the review of post-18 funding will be delayed until January 2019. This has financial implications as the delay takes it past the Nov 2018 budget.

Research Professional say:

Speaking at the UUK conference last week, review chairman Philip Augar suggested that the panel’s work would have to consider any recommendation from the Office for National Statistics on the presentation of student loans in the public accounts. This is bound to affect the recommendations of the panel, which—if we take the heavy hints—is looking to rebalance the inequality of resource between further and higher education.

Read the full Research Professional article here and the BBC coverage.

Student Loans

The Public Accounts Select Committee has launched an inquiry into the Sale of Student Loans following the National Audit Office (NAO) report which noted the Government had sold loans with a face value of £3.5 billion for £1.7 billion (roughly 48p for every £1 in value).

The NAO noted concerns that the Treasury’s key incentive for selling loans was to reduce Public Sector Net Debt—a metric that has been queried by the International Monetary Fund, the Office for Budget Responsibility, and Committees in Parliament. They also highlighted that the DfE (which owns student loans policy) had a different way of estimating value than HM Treasury.

The inquiry will explore the reasons for the sale, how Government can be sure selling the loans is good value for money, remaining risks, and lessons learned for the sale of more loans in the future.

This week the Chancellor was grilled during his annual session with the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee. He was questioned on the calculation methods for representing the student loan debt, Lord Sharkey (Lib Dem) asked if he accepted that the student loans system constituted a ‘fiscal illusion’ in making the deficit appear lower. He responded that at present the UK was accounting for student loans in accordance with Office for National Statistics (ONS) guidance, however, if the ONS changes the guidance then the government would treat the loans differently. He also noted the on-going Review of Post-18 Education would feed into considerations on the matter. [With the Review reputedly delayed because it is awaiting the outcome of the ONS considerations about whether to change the loan calculation methods, a potential spiral of delay here!] Hammond also said he remained confident that the student loans system was significantly redistributive.

When pressed on a potential re-think in relation to maintenance grants the Chancellor responded – yes you guessed it – that due to the on-going Review of Post-18 Education it would not be sensible for him to comment ahead of the review outcomes. When a Committee member pointed out that the constraints around the Review of Post-16 Education had been designed so that the investigators could not make recommendation which would increase the deficit Hammond expressed his scepticism.

On apprenticeships Hammond noted a levelling up shift with less people choosing a Level 2 apprenticeship and more plumping for a Level 3 apprenticeship. Hammond felt this was because businesses were investing their own funds in higher-level apprenticeships.

On the use of the retail price index (RPI) to calculate student loan interest rates. Lord Turnbull (Crossbench) noted the chairman of the Statistics Commission had told the committee that the use of RPI to calculate inflation was inadequate and did not have the potential to become adequate. He questioned Hammond asking if the continued use of RPI was tenable. In response, Hammond said he was expecting the Committee’s report on this issue. He acknowledge that the shortcomings of RPI were well-known, but noted that the ONS had decided in 2012 not to change the RPI formula, and it was not for him to question this decision.

Parliamentary Question

Q – Lord Roberts Of Llandudno: What plans they have, if any, to provide assistance to students paying over six per cent in interest on their tuition fees and maintenance loans.

A – Viscount Younger Of Leckie: The system of variable interest rates based on income is progressive, and ensures that higher earners make a fair contribution to the sustainability of the higher education system. Student loan interest rates vary with income. Only borrowers earning over £45,000 and those in study pay the maximum interest rate of 6.3% and many will be charged less than this. The system of variable interest rates help ensure that the highest earners make a higher total contribution than those on lower incomes. Reducing interest rates would benefit high earners only. That is why the government has increased the repayment threshold from tax year 2018-19 and will increase the repayment threshold again in April 2019, reducing monthly repayments for all borrowers earning above £25,000. We believe that it is right that students should contribute to the cost of their higher education and that this contribution should be linked to their income. This means that those who have benefited the most from their education repay their fair share.

Research

Plan S: Research Professional report that UKRI join European open-access ‘revolution’. Also see this and this.

Research Integrity

The Commons Science and Technology select committee investigated research integrity earlier in the year to examine the reproducibility crisis and trends and developments in fraud, misconduct and mistakes in research and the publication of research results. They concluded that “error, questionable practices, and outright fraud are possible in any human endeavour, and research integrity must be taken seriously and tackled head-on.”

Their report also called for a new national committee on research integrity to be established. We have been waiting for the Government to respond to the Committee’s report and now the Government’s response, along with an accompanying letter from Sam Gyimah can be viewed here. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) also responded here.

The Government supported the call for a new national committee on research integrity confirming that UKRI will explore the set-up of a new committee in detail and report back to the Committee by early 2019. On this Committee Chair, Norman Lamb MP, said:

“I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to explore the central recommendation of our Report. …There is currently a gap in the system that needs to be filled. Universities can be seen to be ‘policing themselves’ when it comes to investigating research misconduct, and a new national committee would provide a counterbalance to that inherent conflict of interest.”

The Government response also welcomed the Committee’s recommendations on strengthening the Concordat. UKRI responded

“As a signatory, we will work to make the concordat’s requirements and expectations clearer. Over the next twelve months, the signatories will agree the revised version of the concordat and provide the committee with a route map and timetable for reaching 100% compliance”. On this Chair Norman Lamb said: “My Committee will keep a close eye on developments to ensure that actions are followed up, but it appears that the Government and UKRI have listened and are taking our concerns seriously.”

On the other calls to action (Committee in blue, Government response in purple):

The Committee also wanted the Government to back the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) and called on them and UUK to recommend all universities subscribe to UKRIO. The Government response was watered down support – stating they would explore with Universities UK (UUK) and UKRIO how we can promote the work of UKRIO as an organisation that furthers good practice in academic, scientific and medical research.

The Committee had concerns were researchers were able to commit misconduct at several institutions because of some universities may be using non-disclosure agreements to keep misconduct quiet or do not rigorously check references. The Committee wanted UKRI to consider how this practice can be effectively banned by institutions receiving public funds. Again the Government tasks UKRI to think it through: …the Government agrees that deliberate research misconduct should be taken extremely seriously. As a first step, we will ask UKRI to explore the scale of the problem and to provide advice on what specific action or actions may be needed, in addition to a strengthening of the Concordat.

Sam Gyimah said: The Government fully recognises the importance of excellent research and we will continue to work closely with UKRI to ensure that researchers are able to work in a culture which is conducive to the highest standards, and that those who use research, and the public at large, can have absolute faith in the quality and reliability of the UK’s world-leading base, now and into the future.

Find out more about the inquiry at the Science and Technology Committee Research Integrity inquiry page.

Brexit – no deal impact on research and mobility

The Government has published two more papers in its technical series setting out what will happen in the event of a Brexit ‘no deal’. They explain how they will support researchers and universities for Horizon 2020 funding and the Erasmus+ scheme.

On Erasmus+ the Government says:

We’re underwriting Erasmus+ funding for all successful bids submitted while we are still in the EU. This arrangement is dependent on reaching agreement with the EU that UK organisations can continue to be eligible to participate in Erasmus+ projects and;
Funding for successful bids will continue for the lifetime of those particular projects
You will still be able to bid for new funding until 2020, if we reach an agreement with the EU that UK organisations can participate in Erasmus+ projects post-exit after the UK has left the EU

Read the full Government statement here

On Horizon 2020 the Government says:

The UK is providing funding through the underwrite guarantee and extension to support UK participants to continue to take part in Horizon 2020 projects, subject to eligibility for participation in the project. The government is seeking discussions with the European Commission to agree the precise details of eligibility. The government is also considering what other measures may be necessary to support UK research and innovation in a ‘no deal’ scenario.
UK Research & Innovation (UKRI) will be developing systems to ensure payments to beneficiaries of Horizon 2020 funding can continue. Current UK recipients of Horizon 2020 funding will soon be invited to provide initial data about project(s) on a portal hosted on GOV.UK. The portal is designed to ensure that UKRI has information about projects and participants in order to deliver the underwrite guarantee if required. UKRI will use the contact details provided by current recipients to inform them of the next steps in the process.

Read the full Government statement on Horizon 2020 here. A Q&A is available here.

International Students

Fulbright Scholarships: On Wednesday Sam Gyimah spoke at the US-UK Fulbright Commission reception to announce increased investment for the scholarship programme. He hailed the UK and US as the heavyweights of higher education and spoke of the special relationship the UK and US in pledging to forge further transnational education partnerships. Sam said:

“The UK and the US are both powerhouses on the international stage, attracting talented students and teachers from across the globe to broaden both of our horizons…. This is a bilateral partnership that celebrates the exchange of innovative ideas and best practice, cementing lasting collaborations and a deeper understanding of each other’s country. We are enormously grateful for the continuing support of both governments, that will enable us to invest in future generations of Fulbright scholars…The UK and US have long been seen as the powerhouses for higher education, with the two countries making up 9 out of ten of the world’s best universities. The funding builds on a strong history of the UK-US bilateral education relationship, and will introduce a programme enabling teachers from the UK to develop and share their professional skills and academic knowledge in the US.”

The Telegraph writes on the Fulbright scholarships quoting Sam Gyimah saying more must be done to attract students from disadvantaged backgrounds and ethnic minorities and that the additional £400,000 should be used to enable students from deprived backgrounds to “benefit from what is historically been perceived as an elite programme”.

Higher Education Commission

The Higher Education Commission launched their international students report on Thursday: Staying Ahead – Are International Students Going Down Under? The report begins:

While the UK has for many decades ranked in clear second place next to the USA for popularity of international HE provision, other countries are putting policies into practice that are attracting a much larger share of mobile students.
In order to build a resilient economy and to develop our soft power and diplomacy the Government needs urgently to develop joined-up policies to actively promote the HE sector. The time feels right politically and in terms of the mood of the nation to remove students from migration numbers and simplify the visa process. [So rather unfortunate publication timing given Tuesday’s verdict by the MAC committee (follows below) that students should remain within the migration numbers.]

The HE Commission’s press release frames the need for international friendliness within the Government’s ambition to grow HE to deliver the 2020 target. It says:

The Higher Education Commission is passionate about the health of the higher education sector and developing the financial value and soft power benefits of its international work at home and abroad. We want the Government to achieve its ambition of boosting the value of international higher education to £30billion by 2020, but this will not be easy given the continued ambiguity around the welcome given to international students and migration targets. This report therefore seeks to assess the best routes to achieve growth including what the Government needs to do to support the HE sector.

Listen to the key issues within the HE Commission’s report or read more here.

Migration Advisory Committee

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) was tasked to assess the impact of international students in the UK and make recommendations to the Government. The HE sector lobbied for a more positive approach to international students, particularly for their removal from the net migration targets throughout. An influential publication was released early on by HEPI quantifying the financial benefits to local areas brought in by international students (£22.6 billion gross nationally). The lobbying continued right up to the last minute with Universities UK proposing a new post-study work visa system to reward and capitalise on international graduate talent.

The MAC published its report on Tuesday dashing the hopes of many within the HE sector.

The Mail Online said the MAC report was “a vindication” for Theresa May, who has often been portrayed as the lone Cabinet voice refusing to back down on the migration targets.

Wonkhe write to acknowledge the disappointment, and also explain the devil may be in the details for the Government:

Yesterday’s Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) report was long awaited by the sector as a hopeful rebuff to Theresa May’s seemingly-isolated position of including international students in the infamous “tens of thousands” migration target. But it didn’t and voices around sector have expressed frustration….But MAC did come as close as such a body can to criticising the politicised use of migration statistics, a practice unique to the UK and a presentational – rather than a statistical – decision that demonstrably harms international student recruitment. This carefully-worded call is likely to give the government a much bigger headache than simply revamping the figures

Wonkhe summarise the MAC report in their blog post highlighting that 7 of the 8 recommendations actually benefit the sector.

There should continue to be no cap on the number of international students, which sat at 438,000 in 2015/16, a rise of almost 30% over the last decade.
The sector and the government should “work more closely together” to grow recruitment, with the committee chair Alan Manning – in a masterpiece of understatement – saying the two sides were not always “on the same page” at present. This feels like a missed opportunity given the report also confirms that the UK has become less competitive, with a “slightly” falling market share (rather than the big dip shown in other, apparently “selective” uses of data), the risk that Australia will overtake us for the second-place spot soon. The UK has no national strategy or recruitment target, and “less generous” post-study work options.
The rules for working while studying, and the rights of dependents, should stay the same as now – with both similar to comparative nations.
The window for switching from Tier 4 (studying) to Tier 2 (working) should be “widened”. Beneath the original fence-sitting language this appears to be a positive suggestion, but is a pretty minor tweak, and hardly a change that will persuade many students to choose the UK over the alternatives.
The post-study leave period for masters students should be extended from four to six months, but with a “more thorough” review. Again potentially positive, but minor.
Similarly, the 12-month post-PhD “leave to remain” period should be automatically incorporated into the original visa, subject to the student meeting progress requirements and/or course completion, replacing the existing Doctoral Extension scheme which needs to be applied to and paid for.
Former Tier 4 students who’ve passed Level 6+ qualifications should be entitled to a two-year grace period in which they can apply out-of-country for a Tier 2 visa, under the same rules as current in-country Tier 4 to Tier 2 switches. This is some way short of the automatic switch (from study to work visa) proposed by Universities UK. Though better than the existing arrangements, it feels insufficient, given that the report says that visa extension numbers dropped from 45,000 to 6,000 after the 2012 clampdown.
However, when it comes to recommendation eight, the question that’s dominated this debate – whether international students should be removed from the net migration statistics used as a target by the government – the committee said no. The stated reasons are that other countries include them, there’s no workable method to take them out, and it wouldn’t make much difference anyway.

Responses

HEPI described the MAC report as ‘woefully disappointing’ (see HEPI’s widely read full response here). The report must have come as a blow to Nick Hillman who earlier in the year called on the MAC Commission to conclude and publish early following their key research which quantified the substantial financial gains hosting international students brought to each parliamentary constituency. Nick says:

Many of us have had misplaced faith in the MAC as a body. Throughout their work, I have repeatedly said the MAC are likely to follow the evidence, which is unusually one-sided and positive on the issue of international students. They bring money, diversity and soft power to the UK. But it seems if you are a Committee that is appointed by the Home Office, answerable to the Home Office and designed primarily to look at labour market economics rather than education, you start and finish in a particular place. If you doubt this, take a look at the recruitment processes for the MAC: when they recently added to their membership, the appointment panel was chaired by the Director of Immigration and Border Policy!

Responding to the report, Professor Dame Janet Beer, President of Universities UK and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Liverpool, said:

“While the UK continues to count international students as long-term migrants in its net migration target, there is a continued pressure to reduce their numbers. This adds to the perception that they are not welcome here. In countries such as the US, Canada and Australia, international students are classified as temporary migrants, alongside tourists and visitors. A change of policy from government in this area would have public backing. Polling suggests that the British public does not see international students as long-term migrants, but as valuable, temporary visitors.
This is an area in which the UK can say it is truly world-leading. While the UK remains one of the most popular locations in the world for talented international students and staff, we have seen a slowdown in recent years compared to other countries. The UK could be doing much better than this, with the potential to be one of the world’s fastest growing destinations for international students and staff.”

Independent Schools Council Chairman, Barnaby Lenon, said:

“In a post-Brexit world not only should we adopt a much warmer attitude towards these students, who have a positive influence on our economy, our intellectual base and our ability to understand other cultures, we also need to make it easier for them to navigate the excessively complicated mechanics of applying for a student visa.”

Jane Gratton, Head of Business Environment and Skills at the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), said:

“Business communities around the UK will be bitterly disappointed not to see support for the removal of overseas students from the immigration statistics. We have been calling for the removal of these students from the immigration figures for a long time as the vast majority go home after completing their courses.

The committee is right to recommend that it should be easier for overseas students to work here at the end of their studies. International students benefit local economies up and down the country, not only through their direct spending power, but also through their skills, languages and cultural awareness. At a time when three quarters of firms are struggling to fill job vacancies, it makes sense to attract and harness the talent of international students.
It’s time to scrap the caps and arbitrary numerical targets. It’s one thing to control migration, but quite another to use arbitrary mechanisms that deny businesses, universities and public sector employers the people they need to address immediate skills gaps.
The government should also restore a post-a study work visa that allows British universities and companies to benefit from the energy of some of the people they have trained. Now more than ever, the UK should be striving to attract the brightest talent from around the world, and our future immigration policy should reflect that instead of a fixation with targets.”

Dr Greg Walker, MillionPlus: “The Committee appears to set aside – without a clear rationale – the compelling evidence submitted to change the UK’s self-defeating policy of restricting the numbers of international students. I would challenge the MAC’s view that including international students in the overall migration target has little or no impact on recruitment – there is plenty of evidence to the contrary”.

James Pitman of Destination for Education said: “This report is a huge missed opportunity to strengthen international education in the UK. The Committee acknowledges the sector will be disappointed. We are.”

Matthew Percival, CBI Head of Employment: “Making it easier to switch to work visas after their studies will help the UK to increase its market share of international students amid fierce competition.”

Meanwhile Migration Watch UK Chairman Lord Green of Deddington had a different view point and congratulated the MAC on their recommendations:

“An excellent report. Full marks to the Professor who found in our favour on two key issues. The MAC endorsement of the inclusion of students in the migration statistics should put this issue to bed. It is also right that the post-study work regime should remain carefully policed. We have long pointed to its risks and welcome the inquiry he has proposed.”

There was substantial media coverage:

The Mail Online – “Official review attacks May’s ‘tens of thousands’ immigration target and says it should be made EASIER for foreign students to stay on in the UK“
BBC – “Overseas students should ‘stay in migration target’“
The Guardian – “Relax rules on foreign students staying to find work in UK, report says“
The Times – “Give overseas students more time to find work, May is urged“
The Mirror – “Official review says it should be easier for foreign students to build their lives in Britain“
Holyrood – “Post-study work visa needed for international students“

Value for money

The OECD have issued their report on education in 2018.

It is always interesting to see what commentators and the media select to report

The BBC:

The UK pays the highest level of tuition fees in the industrialised world apart from the United States – driven by the cost of fees in England rather than other parts of the UK .But, the OECD annual report says, much of this will not be repaid and that a “well-developed system of financial support” has allowed rising numbers of students to go to university.
By international standards, the UK has a high proportion of young people going to university, the OECD says.
The UK has seen a sharp fall in mature student numbers – and the average age for a graduate in the UK is now 23, the youngest in the OECD countries.
The proportion of students taking maths and science is high by international standards, but for engineering it is among the lowest.

The Department for Education response:

Almost 1 in 5 of all students in tertiary education in the UK are international, with the UK having one of the highest proportions of international students ….demonstrating the quality and reputation of our universities and their success as a global export.
Higher education – The OECD found that the United Kingdom offers some of the most generous financial support for students. The Government has also taken steps to make the system better for graduates, including by increasing the repayment threshold, saving them up to £360 a year, and a record proportion of disadvantaged 18-year-olds accepted a place at university on A Level results day earlier this year.

A Guardian article by Sally Hunt of UCU: UK spending on tertiary education staff as a proportion of current expenditure stands at just 63% – lower than both the OECD average (68%) and the EU average (70%). Many of our nearest competitor countries invest a significantly higher proportion in their tertiary workforce, with France spending 80%, Belgium 76% and Germany 67% of their current expenditure on staff.

The Telegraph: The value of a university education has been called into question by a new international study which found that almost one in three graduates are overqualified for their jobs. In England, 28 per cent of graduates have jobs which do not require a degree, according to a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This is double the average proportion for OECD countries (14 per cent), and second only to Japan (29 per cent).

And the Minister: UK needs graduates but some courses are not delivering. Our Universities need to call time on low quality threadbare degrees that are not delivering real opportunity for students.

Valuable Universities: Advance HE have published Let’s talk Value – How Universities create Value for Students, Staff and Society aiming to stimulate debate and encourage more universities to demonstrate the value they create and how they describe and report their value.

Part time study: It’s £ worth it: The Open University (OU) reveal details of a London Economics study into the benefits of mature, part-time study. The study suggests that a student completing a part-time degree in their late-thirties can benefit from a graduate premium of £238,000 for men and £147,000 for women in real terms – and contribute £123,000 more in tax paid to the Treasury over the course of their working life. The study goes on to suggest that the annual rate of return on investment for the Treasury investing in this provision is up to 25% – higher than the cost of borrowing facing the government, currently 2%.

This has led to recommendations from the OU on tuition fees and maintenance grants for part-time students, incentives to deliver more flexible shorter courses, better IAG for adults, and support for progression at Levels 4 and 5. Mary Kellett, acting VC at the OU, introduces the research through her blog: Why part-time study is so valuable.

Freedom of Speech

During the Education Questions on Monday Sam Gyimah said that free speech guidance will be published during autumn 2018. Sam said:

“We want our universities to be bastions of free speech where a free and robust exchange of ideas thrives. I am very encouraged that the Office for Students has made it very clear that, as a regulator, it will be encouraging free speech in our universities and that, if it intervenes, it will never be to restrict it…. We want free speech, diversity of opinion, diversity of thought and civility in debate, where people do not easily take offence or give offence too easily. That is why I am working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission and key stakeholders to come up with new guidance on free speech to deal with the dizzying array of regulations that wreckers on campus can exploit to frustrate free speech….We must always stand up for free speech. We must not allow bureaucracy on campus to stifle free speech, and it is our duty to make sure that it is promoted, because if universities are not about free speech, what are they for?.. New guidance on clarifying all the rules around free speech will be published this autumn.”

OfS – performance measures

Nicola Dandridge blogged for Wonkhe on Friday to explain the key performance measures of how the OfS will measure the sector and its own performance. She describes the focus of the measures is on making a difference to students’ lives and ‘where we don’t already have established metrics that measure the relevant outcomes, we are going to create new ones’ whilst recognising that data is only a proxy starting point to understand whether OfS and the sector are improving outcomes for students.

She describes the primary function of the performance measures as a guiding light to focus the OfS’ efforts, to shape how they priorities activities and deploy resources. Nicola continued:

We expect, and hope, to be subjected to scrutiny. It is right that students, providers, and indeed everyone with an interest in HE can see how we are performing, both where we are succeeding and where we need to redouble our efforts.
We will be setting a high bar for ourselves. There is no guarantee that our targets will be achieved – but that’s the point. Unexpected external factors will always influence these measures, and may prevent progress. But in an uncertain world, we still believe in the importance of measuring our performance against our goals. On their own, they cannot tell the whole story of our performance, but they can highlight possible issues, prompt reflection, and focus attention where it may be needed most.

New Students

Sense of Belonging: Advance HE blog about the University of Huddersfield’s Flying Start programme, one of the OfS’ Intervention for Success projects, which is reported to increase students’ sense of belonging. The blog says:

We evaluated the impact of Flying Start using an adapted version of the Yorke (2016) ‘belongingness’ survey with 1,017 respondents, revealing that Flying Start students, particularly males, scored significantly higher than others for relationship formation, confidence and a sense of belonging. In addition, a focus group of tutors revealed stronger rapport at an earlier stage and earlier identification of risk factors such as attendance, commitment and study skills. Tutors also noted a dramatic difference in students’ levels of confidence compared with previous years, and that students were much more likely than previous cohorts to ask for help, to contribute in group sessions and to engage in critically reflective activities.

Readers of Wonkhe (subscribe free to a weekly roundup email) will have seen their scoop on Generation Z:

As week zero commences at many universities across the country, we’re taking stock of who the new generation of students are, and what their political and social profile might tell us about their new experience at university.

Just 25% of Generation Z students say they believe they can have a rewarding career without going to university.
They rank YouTube second only to academics as a learning tool – ahead of lectures, collaboration with classmates, learning apps, and “books”.
In personal relationships, they are nearly twice as trusting of other people than Millennials were.
And they’re savvier [than Millennials](or arguably more cynical) when it comes to news – far fewer than ever believe most or all of what they see on news websites and apps.

And there are implications for graduate outcomes data. Wonkhe say:

The three classic “markers” of adulthood tend to be marriage, parenthood, and (at least in the UK) property ownership. When today’s HE leaders entered HE they might reasonably have been expecting to achieve all three soon after graduation. But not only are the ages of achieving all three markers generally higher for graduates (whose cohort is growing), all three have been on an inexorable rise since the seventies. The average marriage age is now over 35, and first-time buyers are almost all over 30 – as are new parents.
Academics argue that we’re seeing the creation of a new “middle stage” which begins with the end of secondary school and ends with the attainment of “full adult status”. In this period, young people decide who they are and what they want out of life; they repeatedly change residence and careers, they experiment before choices get limited by marriage, children, career, or property ownership, and they believe in a good chance of living “better than their parents did”.
Whatever the political implications, the extension of “delayed adulthood” also raises questions about what the sector is preparing students for. Pushing them into defined careers when they’re unlikely to settle on one for some time looks out of date. And from what we know about them, we probably shouldn’t expect these students to be tolerant of or willing to enter into debate with those who espouse intolerant views. And, we need to accept deeper involvement from parents that will likely be bankrolling them for the rest of their twenties.

The Office for National Statistics share Being 18 in 2018 which portray our new starters as Generation Sensible in comparison to the Millennial ‘peak drinkers’, it also explains the 18 year old population decline.

A number of guest bloggers have also written for Wonkhe on new starters:

Student Minds: Healthier and safer students know before they go
A blog on WP and pre-entry programmes: Capital gains: How school pupils become university students
And Understanding new students’ expectations, experiences and anxieties – messages from a learning gain perspective.

Mental Health

A volley of questions around mental health services (particularly younger children) were asked in the House of Commons this week. Two that relate to universities follow:

Q – Chris Ruane: What estimate he has made of the number and proportion of University students who have accessed mental health services through (a) their university and (b) the NHS in each of the last seven years.

A – Sam Gyimah:

Higher education providers (HEPs) are not required to submit information on students accessing their mental health services. Students have no obligation to disclose to their institution or any other party if they access NHS mental health services. Research conducted last year by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) says: 81% of HEPs report an increase in overall demand for student support services, while 41% of HEPs report an increase of over 25%.
94% of HEPs report an increase in demand for counselling services, while 61% of HEPs report an increase of over 25%. The University Mental Health Charter, announced in June, is backed by the government and led by the sector, and will drive up standards in promoting student and staff mental health and wellbeing.

Q – Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many and what proportion of university students have been diagnosed with a mental health condition.

A – Sam Gyimah:

Any disclosure of diagnosed mental health conditions by higher education students to their institution is voluntary. The actual number of university students with diagnosed mental health conditions is therefore unknown.
Latest data available from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) for the academic year 2016/17 shows that 57,300 students enrolled at UK Higher Education Institutions had declared that they suffer from a mental health condition, which is 2.5% of all enrolments.

Prevent

The OfS has released several case studies on the Prevent duty and published the 2018-19 monitoring framework. On the framework Wonkhe note that the light touch approach is tempered with a more authoritarian tone. They write:

Although the expected language of “reduced burden” and “risk-based monitoring” is present and correct, in reality, the new system feels quicker to punish. For example – review meetings, previously very much a last resort, will now take place at a random sample of the 97% of institutions that fulfil the duty and where no concerns have been raised, and are also much more likely to be triggered by a reported serious incident – in both cases with limited notice.
Material changes in circumstance are also still notifiable, with these now including a new campus, a change in teaching methods, and a new partnership that could impact upon Prevent-related considerations. Higher-risk providers and new entrants are singled out for extra attention. Support for the development of staff training has been lost and providers must now submit new information in their annual returns.

Widening Participation & Achievement – Care Leavers

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, Nadhim Zahawi, spoke on care leavers to confirm the launch of a care leaver covenant on 26 October:

“Care leavers are an important part of the overall strategy for support for children in need, which we have reviewed. Very importantly, we are also launching the care leaver covenant on 26 October, with which we will continue to maintain further support for care leavers; obviously, we have already extended the system of personal advisers to the age of 25.”

Sam Gyimah responded to a parliamentary question on Care Leaver students:

Q – Vicky Foxcroft: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment he has made of the (a) financial circumstances and (b) emotional well-being of (i) care leavers and (ii) estranged students at university.

A – Sam Gyimah:

As autonomous and independent organisations, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) determine what welfare services they need to provide to their students. Each institution will be best placed to identify the needs of their particular student body.
The government is concerned to ensure that the particular needs of care leavers and estranged students are addressed by HEIs. Guidance to the Office for Students (OfS), on completing 2019/20 access and participation plans, specifically identifies care leavers as a key target group whose needs HEIs should address. This is reflected in the OfS’ own guidance to the sector. The OfS is also encouraging HEIs to formalise and publicise the support they provide care leavers by becoming signatories of the Care Leavers’ Covenant, and backing that up with the practical help care leavers need to succeed in their studies.
Many HEI student services teams are experienced in responding to the emotional and financial needs of care leavers and estranged students, and have a named staff member (such as Care Leaver Coordinator) whose role has been specifically created to support such students.
Student Support Regulations provide that care leavers and estranged students are treated as independent students in the household income assessment for undergraduate living costs support. Many HEIs also offer additional advice to care leavers and estranged students on financing options, scholarships and bursaries, and, in some cases, a guarantee of 52 weeks a year accommodation for the duration of their course.

Consultations

There aren’t any new consultations or inquiries this week, although some outcomes and responses to previous consultations have been released. Click here to view the updated consultation tracker.
Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the ongoing consultations.

Other news

Digital skills: Jisc surveyed 37,000 tertiary students. 70% believe digital skills will be important for the future career, 88% of HE students were satisfied with the digital offer at their institution. However, only 41% of tertiary students believe the course they are studying will adequately prepare them for the digital world of work. Sam Gyimah writes in the foreword of the report:

“This issue must be addressed as a matter of urgency if universities and colleges are to deliver for students, employers and the country as a whole.
“I want all educational leaders to look closely at this report and consider how they can improve their own provision through the effective use of technology.
“I also urge them to take full advantage of the expert advice and “on the ground’ support provided by Jisc to take a fully digital approach to issues such as curriculum design and the learning environment.”

You can read the full report: Digital experience insights survey 2018: finds from students in UK further and higher education here.

Learning Technology: Maren Deepwell, Chief Exec of Association for Learning Technology blogs her thoughts in The state of education technology in higher education.

Health Care Professions: Minister of State for Health and Social Care, Stephen Barclay, responded to a parliamentary question to provide details on how many students entered nursing, midwifery and GP training in the last five years.

Student Accommodation: The Telegraph reports that Unite, who manage private student residential accommodation, have sold 14 properties valued at £180 million as part of its strategy of selling off properties with low growth potential in order to boost investment in those with brighter prospects, i.e. refocusing their portfolio away from lower ranked universities. Richard Smith, Unite chief executive, is reported to have said: “The UK’s high and mid-ranked universities are some of the most attractive for both home and international students, ensuring demand for our beds remains high.”

BU’s Sustainability: BU receives a mention this week for its positive results following engagement in the Green Rewards scheme. Read more in Gamification delivers more than 200,000 sustainable actions for UK universities.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

66724 65070

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

September 14, 2018

NIHR and World Health Organisation joint statement – have your say!

BU Challenges, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, NHS, open access, PG research, Post-award, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy Suzy Wignall

There is an increasing emphasis on the need for researchers and sponsors to publish, and disseminate, the results of the clinical studies that they conduct. Timely disclosure of results is important ethically, morally, in the interests of research integrity and from a waste reduction perspective.
Dissemination of results, whether favourable or not, also achieves transparency – increasingly important from the perspective of the recent introduction of the GDPR.

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) have signed-up to the WHO’s joint statement on public disclosure of results from clinical trials. The policy sets out the expectations and support on offer in order for research communities to comply. The draft policy is available to read, with a quick survey open until 21st September, for you to have your say.

BU has access to the ClinicalTrials.gov system – get in touch for access and for the opportunity to register your study and results in the public domain.

August 6, 2018

Research methods paper published by CMMPH student Preeti Mahato

Centre for Excellence in Learning, international, PG research, Publishing, Research Integritiy, Student Engagement, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

Congratulations to PhD student Mrs Preeti Mahato who has a research methods paper published based on her PhD study in Nepal [1]. In the areas of health promotion and health education, mixed-methods research approach has become widely used. In mixed-methods research, also referred to as multi-methods research, researchers combine quantitative and qualitative research designs in a single study. This paper introduces the mixed-methods approach for use in research in health education. To illustrate this pragmatic research approach the paper includes Preeti’s thesis as an example of mixed-methods research as applied in Nepal.

The paper, in the Journal of Health Promotion, is co-authored by Preeti’s PhD supervisors Dr. Catherine Angell and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen (both in the Centre for midwifery, Maternal &Perinatal Health) and BU Visiting Faculty Prof. Padam Simkhada.

Reference:

Mahato, P., Angell, C., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P.P. (2018) Using Mixed-methods Research in Health & Education in Nepal, Journal of Health Promotion Official Publication of Health Education Association of Nepal (HEAN), 6: 45-48.

July 24, 2018

Erasmus + Programme: Visit to the Sanchez-Vives Lab at the Institute for Biomedical Research IDIBAPS-Barcelona

BU Challenges, Fusion themes, REF Subjects, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, staff profile pages ebballester

What is consciousness? In the traditional view, consciousness is a state of self-awareness in which the brain can experience perceptions; but which suddenly disappears in anaesthesia, coma or dreamless sleep. However, the common belief that there is sharp edge between an underlying unconscious state and consciousness is being challenged by new neurophysiological findings and theoretical models.

Is an isolated network of cells, a piece of mammal brain confined in a dish (an in vitro preparation) “conscious of itself”? if so, how can this be demonstrated? And by extension, is it a complex neuronal network model, capable of emulating the causal computations of such neuronal circuit, able to perform conscious functions?

These and connected topics were the focus of the discussions during my fascinating visit last June to the Sanchez-Vives Lab http://www.sanchez-vives.org/, within the Institute for Biomedical Research IDIBAPS; located in the core of the city of Barcelona, in the picturesque carrer Rosello. The visit was supported the Erasmus + Funds for Staff Mobility, https://www.erasmusplus.org.uk/apply-for-higher-education-student-and-staff-mobility-funding; through Global BU at Bournemouth University, coordinated by Ms Elaine Asbridge.

Professor Maria-Victora Sanchez-Vives is the leader of an associated project within the large Human Brain Project initiative, https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/en/ a FLAGSHIP FET 2020 project, spanning for 10 years and involving the over 100 European Universities. Mavi Sanchez-Vives co-supervises a Bournemouth University PhD student, Mr Roman Arango-Cabrera, whose research focuses on studying the rhythms of the spontaneous neuronal activity in isolated cortical slices in vitro.

I was particularly keen to know directly from the team of experienced postdoctoral researchers the experimental process leading to the datasets that Roman has been analysing. Likewise, I was very excited about explaining Mavi and the team the new ideas that we are designing in Bournemouth.

Their recording techniques are especially devised for identifying the spatiotemporal propagation of extracellular potentials through a neuronal network. During my short period in Barcelona, we discussed the design of a new experiment, a variant of their current state-of-the-art recording system by enhancing the precision of the registrations. This new experiment can serve as a feasibility test for our new algorithms developed in Bournemouth University.

The visit was successful in every way, I learned a lot and enjoyed very much the atmosphere in the lab during the four days I spent with them. I am very grateful to Mavi, Vanessa and to every member of the Lab for the invitation and for the great support.

In summary, in the quest for a biophysical substrate of consciousness, a key milestone is the understanding of spontaneous activity propagation in isolated cortical networks; which is the topic of this training visit supported by the Erasmus + Mobility funds. The boundary between conscious and unconscious states seems to be increasingly blurred with each new advance in the area; proposing exciting ethical challenges for the following decade.

Maria V. Sanchez-Vives, Marcello Massimini, Maurizio Mattia. 2017. Shaping the Default Activity Pattern of the Cortical Network. Neuron, 94(5): 993-1001.

July 18, 2018

CRN share checklist for optimising patient experience

Knowledge Exchange, NHS, Public engagement, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy Suzy Wignall

The NIHR Clinical Research Network have shared a checklist, based on themes identified from the feedback collected via 4,665 patients during 2017/18.

The feedback highlighted what’s important to people when participating in studies, so it is hoped that the document will aid researchers in enhancing patient experience.

You can view the checklist here.

July 16, 2018

HE Policy update for the w/e 13th July 2018

international, NHS, Research Integritiy jforster

You can’t have missed this

Dominic Raab has been appointed as the new Brexit Secretary. Previously he was the Minister of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) now holds the Housing role). Dominic’s political interests are civil liberties, human rights, industrial relations, and the economy. Alongside Dominic Chris Heaton-Harris MP (Daventry) has been appointed as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Exiting the European Union.

Boris Johnson resigned as Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on Monday (Politics Home covered his resignation). Local MP Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) has resigned his position as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Boris Johnson at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Boris is replaced by Jeremy Hunt.

As the reshuffle ripples outwards Matt Hancock (previously digital) has been appointed as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with Jeremy Wright QC appointed as Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Geoffrey Cox QC MP (Torridge and West Devon) has been appointed as Attorney General.

Dame Martina Milburn has been confirmed as the Chair of the Social Mobility Commission. She is expected to set out her priorities and strategy for improving the impact of the Commission and championing social justice shortly. Her remit states she should avoid duplicating the work of other organisations and think tanks. The Dame is known to support vocational education and apprenticeships.

Brexit – There has been no escaping Brexit this week with the high profile resignations and the Brexit white paper. UUK International’s response to the white paper to focus on research:

“It is encouraging to see that the importance of attracting world class researchers and international students has been acknowledged. We also welcome the UK’s proposed participation in Horizon Europe and the next Erasmus programme, which will benefit EU member states as well as the UK.
We urge the government and the EU to engage and reach agreement on these matters as quickly as possible to provide the certainty that university students and staff need on opportunities to study abroad and collaborate in research.” (Vivienne Stern, UUK International)

MillionPlus weren’t quite so magnanimous:

“The labour mobility proposals in the White Paper indicate a clearer direction of travel from the government but reference to researcher mobility with the EU as ‘temporary’ and without any supporting detail will not reassure many. Maintaining the UK’s world class strengths in science and research will require a comprehensive and ongoing agreement concerning the mobility of academic and research staff. Other key concerns have gone unanswered in the White Paper, such as reciprocal agreement on university fees for EU students post-Brexit. This is a matter that should be a priority for the government, not an also-ran issue.
With so much time already lost, it will be challenging for agreement to be reached on the final shape of Brexit in time for the European Council in October. Any delay beyond this would be deeply problematic and expose the UK to a greater risk of ‘crashing out’ of the EU in March 2019. Such an eventuality could bring hugely damaging consequences for UK universities, their staff and students.” (Greg Walker, MillionPlus)

The Creative Industries Federation stated:

“…we need to see stronger commitments on participation in Creative Europe and broadcasting, and more details on intellectual property, the definition of “major events” for the temporary movement of goods, the mobility framework and future immigration rules. It is one thing to permit people to come to the UK, but it is quite another to ensure they are valued and able to contribute to our creative industries.”

There was also an immigration parliamentary question focussed on the Creative Industries this week:

Q – Dr Lisa Cameron: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will take steps as part of the negotiations for the UK leaving the EU to seek the creation of a visa system between the UK and EU countries to meet the needs of the creative sector.

A – Caroline Nokes:

The Government is considering a range of options for the future immigration system. We will build a comprehensive picture of the needs and interests of all parts of the UK, including different sectors, businesses and communities, and look to develop a system that works for all. We will make decisions on the future immigration system based on evidence and engagement. That is why we have asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee to advise on the economic and social impacts of the UK’s exit from the EU. When building the new system, various aspects including the creative sector will be taken into account, to ensure the future immigration system works for sectors. We will set out proposals later this year.

This week’s Brexit/Research parliamentary question is:

Q – Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whether UK (a) companies and (b) institutions will be able to participate in EU research and development projects after 2020.

A – Sam Gyimah:

As part of our future partnership with the EU, the UK will look to establish an ambitious future agreement on science and innovation that ensures the valuable research links between us continue to grow.
The UK would like to participate in EU research and development projects after 2020 and would like the option to fully associate to the excellence-based European research and innovation programmes, including Horizon Europe (the successor to Horizon 2020) and Euratom Research and Training.

Such an association would involve an appropriate UK financial contribution linked to a suitable level of influence in line with the contribution and benefits the UK brings. The UK looks forward to discussing the detail of any future UK participation with the European Commission.

The Government also published their response to the Science and Technology Committee’s second report into Brexit, Science and Innovation this week.

Admissions

UCAS published their analysis of the national picture of full-time undergraduate applications made by end June 2018 (2018 cycle entrants). Key points:

In England, a record 38.1% of the 18 year old population have applied (0.2% up on this point in 2017). This is despite a 2.3% drop in total number of 18 year olds in England.
In Northern Ireland and Scotland the applications have dropped slights and Wales is also up by 0.2% against this point in 2017.
However, across all ages, there are now 511,460 UK applicants, a 3% decline on this point in 2017. Overall applicants are down across all of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. In England there were 421,610 applicants (a decrease of 4%).
The number of EU applicants has risen 2% to 50,130.
There are a record number of students from outside the EU – 75,380 students applied to study (an increase of 6%).
Overall, 636,960 people applied in the current application cycle – a 2% decrease from 2017.
Nursing applications continue to drop – there were 48,170 applicants (9% down on last year). The picture for England only is worse – 35,260 applicants – 12% drop against 2017.

It’s likely that nursing applications have fallen so far because of the double whammy of reducing numbers of mature students accessing HE and the removal of the NHS bursary. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has noted that applications to nursing courses have dropped by one third in the two year since the bursary has been removed. They go on to note

the independent NHS Pay Review Body (PRB) warned this workforce gap could persist until 2027 unless immediate action is taken, jeopardising patient care for much of the next decade. In the official report to Government last month, the PRB told ministers the removal of the nursing bursary had resulted in a marked drop in applications.

The news on the poor recruitment is a blow for NHS England’s nurse recruitment campaign (launched last week). The RCN have stated:

“We urgently need financial incentives to attract more students into the profession, and nursing students must be encouraged and supported. Our health and social care system is crying out for more nurses and recruitment should be the number one priority for the new Health Secretary.”

Research Integrity

The Science and Technology Committee continue their inquiry into research integrity and published their latest report this week (follow this link to access a more readable pdf version of the report). The inquiry aims to investigate trends and developments in fraud, misconduct and mistakes in research and the publication of research results. The recent report looks at problems arising from errors, questionable practices, fraud in research, and what can be done to ensure that problems are handled appropriately. Findings include:

Despite a commitment in the 2012 Concordat to Support Research Integrity, a quarter of universities are not producing an annual report on research integrity.
This lack of consistent transparency in reporting data on the number of misconduct investigations, and inconsistency in the way the information is recorded, means it is difficult to calculate the scale of research misconduct in the UK.
While compliance with Concordat is technically a prerequisite for receiving research and higher education council funding, non-compliance has not led to any funding actions against institutions.
There has been a lack of co-ordinated leadership in implementing the Concordat’s recommendations in universities.

The Committee issued this press release: Quarter of universities not reporting on potential malpractice

Norman Lamb, Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, said:

“Research can help tackle some of the world’s great challenges including as disease, climate change and global inequality. The UK is a world leader in research, and our universities are at the forefront of the many of the world’s great scientific breakthroughs. The importance of public confidence in research can’t be overstated.
While most universities publish an annual report on research integrity, six years from signing a Concordat which recommends doing so it is not yet consistent across the sector. It’s not a good look for the research community to be dragging its heels on this, particularly given research fraud can quite literally become a matter of life and death.
We need an approach to transparency which recognises that error, poor uses of statistics and even fraud are possible in any human endeavour, and a clear demonstration that universities look for problems and tackle them when they arise.”

Plagiarism

A parliamentary question on plagiarism this week:

Q – Tonia Antoniazzi: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps his Department is taking to tackle (a) contract cheating services and (b) essay mills in Universities.

And: whether his Department is undertaking a review to establish the extent to which the practices of companies offering (a) essay writing and (b) other cheat services to students in the UK are illegal.

And: if he will bring forward legislative proposals to make it illegal for third party companies to provide exam answers to students.

A – Sam Gyimah: [Same answer to all of Tonia’s questions]

Cheating is unacceptable – it undermines the reputation of the sector, and devalues the hard work of those succeeding on their own merit.
I welcome the swift action YouTube took to remove videos containing adverts promoting the EduBirdie essay-writing service, in response to recent the BBC Trending investigation on academic cheating, in which I made it very clear that YouTube had a moral responsibility to take action.
We are currently focusing on non-legislative options, but remain open to the future need for legislation, and will investigate all options available. We should only legislate where it is absolutely necessary. The government’s preferred approach is to tackle this issue through a sector-led initiative, which is why the department has worked with the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), Universities UK (UUK) and the National Union of Students to publish guidance last October for all UK Universities on how best to tackle contract cheating.
Time is needed to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the new guidance and this is underway. The QAA is running a series of seminars to evaluate how the sector is using the guidance.
Universities themselves are already taking action, and it is right that they should do so, as it is their own reputations and that of the higher education sector that are on the line. UUK played a key role in developing the new guidance.
In England, through the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, we have brought forward legislation that gives the new Office for Students (OfS) the power to take action if providers are complicit, which including imposing fines or ultimately de-registration of providers, the highest possible punishment.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s first ever strategic guidance letter to the OfS made it clear that it is a priority for the OfS to work with the QAA to improve and ensure confidence in the quality and standards of higher education. The OfS has an obligation to report to the Secretary of State, and the department will monitor progress closely.

Contextual Admissions

The Fair Education Alliance (FEA) released Putting fairness in context: using data to widen access to higher education which summarises the full research that they commissioned from the University of Exeter’s Centre for Social Mobility. The FEA state the report

seeks to shine a light on how contextual data is used in practice at highly selective universities, and to make recommendations on how to ensure that institutions have access to and use contextual data in ways that will make access to higher education in the UK fairer.

The FEA go on to state:

While [contextual admissions] has become more accepted, it is applied in a wealth of ways across HEIs and it is often unclear (particularly for applicants) exactly which practices are undertaken. We believe this is impeding the spread of good practice, and is creating an unacceptable position for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds whereby it is likely they will be considered a ‘contextual’ applicant at some HEIs, and not at others, and will have no way of knowing which universities will take their background into account.

The report goes on to explore how to improve the use of contextualised admissions, the role of data within admissions and current practices.

For a quick read the FEA’s press release covers the main points and background to the report.

Chris Millward (Office for Students Director of Fair Access and Participation) spoke at the launch of the report to urge universities to be more ambitious and extend their contextual admissions practice. He stated:

“We are a long way from equality of opportunity in relation to access to higher education. So in the coming years, I will be expecting universities and colleges to set more ambitious targets in their access and participation plans to narrow the gaps. This will include measures to increase the pool of applicants with the high levels of attainment needed to enter many universities. But if we wait the years this will take to achieve, we will fail the next generation of students.
An ambitious approach to contextual admissions must be central to our strategy if we are going to make progress on access at the scale and pace necessary to meet the expectations of government, students and the wider public. A level grades can only be considered to be a robust measure of potential if they are considered alongside the context in which they are achieved.
I do not believe that the inequality of access we see currently can reflect a lack of potential, and promoting equality of opportunity must be concerned with unlocking potential for students from all backgrounds.”

Research Professional wrote:

Millward will no doubt understand from the experience of his predecessor Les Ebdon that the real power of a regulator lies in the threat to use the sanctions at its disposal, rather than actually implementing them. It will be interesting to see if the new regime at the OfS is prepared to make an example of a university on this topic. Higher education institutions cannot say they have not been warned.

Further media coverage courtesy of Wonkhe:

The Telegraph – Universities forced to lower grades for poor students complain they will plummet down league tables
BBC – University entry ‘should be background, not just exams’
The Guardian – Give more places to disadvantaged students, watchdog urges universities
The Times – Universities told to lower offers for poor
The Scotsman – Alastair Sim: Getting poorer applicants to university isn’t easy but we are trying hard

Researchers’ use of personal data

It’s fines for Facebook and the publication of the Information Commissioner’s report into the Cambridge Analytica scandal (Investigation into the use of data analytics in political campaigns). One of the report recommendations is

that Universities UK work with all universities to consider the risks arising from use of personal data by academics in a university research capacity and where they work with their own private companies or other third parties.

Universities UK have confirmed they will undertake this review of how researchers use personal data, collaborating with the Information Commissioner. Research Professional state:

Only yesterday…we urged universities to get ahead of the curve on public perceptions of research integrity. Whoops! Too late. Now every university in the country will be subject to a review brought as a result of a single high-profile case in which it would seem there was insufficient oversight. This is not just any old higher education front-page story—we have become blasé about those. This is a story that involves the vote to leave the European Union and the election of the 45th president of the United States. It makes vice-chancellors’ salaries look like chickenfeed.

Research Professional continue:

The commission seems to feel that if this can happen in Cambridge then it can happen anywhere. The report is cutting: “What is clear is that there is room for improvement in how higher education institutions overall handle data in the context of academic research and whilst well-established structures exist in relation to the ethical issues that arise from research, similar structures do not appear to exist in relation to data protection.”

Brain Drain

Last week a study by Grant Thornton – UK regions struggling to retain young talent – considered the brain drain student retention crisis across the UK. It found that certain regions struggle to retain their best and brightest young graduates and illustrated a regional divide on whether university students stay or leave the area after graduating. Unsurprisingly London doesn’t struggle to retain its graduates – 69% want to stay and work in London after graduating – more than twice the number of any other region. Next best performing was Scotland (32%) and the North West (28%).

The study also found disparity between the regions when it comes to whether young people choose to go to university close to home or further afield. Again London performed well – 57% chose to stay in London to go to university. The South West had the lowest result of the whole country. Less than one in four young people elected to go to university in the region. While the number of young people from the South West choosing to move to London was more than double most of the other UK regions.

The research also explored what matters most to students when it comes to choosing where they want to live and work post-graduation. It wasn’t career opportunities or higher pay but having a good work-life balance that was considered the biggest motivator (48% of respondents) – mirroring the trend that’s already being seen across the Millennial and Generation Z workforce. This was followed closely by being somewhere with family and friends nearby (47%).

Time spent travelling (43%), housing affordability (43%), career development (42%) and job availability (42%) also ranked highly, while housing availability (7%), being able to start or grow a business (8%) and, surprisingly, living in a diverse place (13%) or one with a sense of community (14%) were rated as the least important factors.

Students were asked what businesses could do to encourage them to stay in or move to London after graduation, rather than to somewhere in the UK, or abroad. They responded:

Financial support – whether to pay for housing, daily essentials or to pay off student loans –ranked highly.
‘Softer’ benefits and support was considered important.
Leisure benefits such as gym memberships or tickets to cultural events were seen as worthy contributions from businesses to young talent.
The ability to work flexibly also ranked highly, with nearly a quarter of those surveyed believing this would influence their decision about where to live and work.

Grant Thornton stated:

“There’s…a clear role for higher education institutions to play in tackling this problem. Universities around the country need to be proactive in fostering stronger links with local businesses and creating a viable and attractive pathway for departing students to enter the local economy. This is especially important with tuition fees being where they are and universities needing to add as much value as possible for students.”

Parliamentary Questions

Scholarships & WP

Q – Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what discussions he has had with representatives of universities on ensuring that (a) scholarships are made available and (b) those scholarships are all taken up; and if he will make a statement.

A – Sam Gyimah:

Providers of higher education are autonomous institutions, and whether to offer scholarships is a matter for each individual provider to decide.
Where providers use scholarships and other forms of financial support to help widen access, we have said in our guidance to the Office for Students (OfS), that we expect such financial support to be backed up by evidence that shows the investment is proportionate to the contribution it is expected to make towards widening access. Any provider wishing to charge higher fees has to have an access and participation plan agreed with the OfS, setting out the measures and expenditure it intends to make to widen the access and success of disadvantaged students in higher education.

Gender Pay Gap

Q – Dan Carden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what estimate his Department has made of the gender pay gap in the higher education sector.

A – Sam Gyimah:

The data on the gender pay gap in the higher education sector can be found here. The Higher Education Funding Council for England, which preceded the OfS, commissioned a project that aims to equalise the gender balance and ethnic diversity of higher education governing bodies. This work will include establishing an online exchange to recruit board members. [Response edited, view longer response here]

Please note Parliament updated this response from Sam Gyimah to correct inaccuracies.

T-Levels

Q – Ben Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of technical education provision for secondary school pupils.

A – Anne Milton:

There are currently thousands of technical qualifications available to students at post-16, but some are not of sufficiently high quality. This makes technical qualification options confusing for both students and employers and is why we are introducing new T Levels. Alongside reformed apprenticeships, T Levels will give students a genuine, high quality alternative to A levels. They will give students the skills they need to secure a good job, as well as the knowledge and behaviours that employers value. We are making excellent progress with their development, and recently announced the selected providers who will deliver the first three T Level programmes from September 2020.
Students at key stage 4 in any type of school are able to take up to three Technical Awards alongside GCSEs that will count towards their school’s Progress 8 and Attainment 8 scores. Technical Awards focus on the applied study of a particular sector or occupational group, and include the acquisition of associate practical or technical skills where appropriate. Each Technical Award is equivalent to a GCSE in robustness and challenge.

Consultations

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

Other news

Alternative providers: The HE leavers statistics from alternative providers from 2016/17 has been published by HESA here.
Prevent: 97% of HE have satisfied the OfS on the Prevent duty in 2016/17 (news article here).
Engaging parents: King College London have published a report on how universities should work with parents to increase access to university. The report finds 95% of parents are concerned about their children attending university because of debt, living costs, support available to the child and employment prospects.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

July 9, 2018

Training opportunity – completing and submitting your IRAS application

NHS, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, Training Suzy Wignall

Are you currently in the process of designing, setting up or planning your research study, and would like to extend your project into the NHS?

Yes? Then you may want to take advantage of this training opportunity.

Oliver Hopper (Research & Development Coordinator, Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospital) and Suzy Wignall (Clinical Governance Advisor, R&KEO) will be running a training session on how to use, and complete your own application within the IRAS system.

IRAS (Integrated Research Application System) is the system used to gain approvals from the NHS Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority, before rolling out your study to NHS Trusts. To support this, the session will include the background to research ethics and the approvals required for NHS research.

The session will also be interactive, and so as participants, you will have the opportunity to go through the form itself and complete the sections, with guidance on what the reviewers are expecting to see in your answers, and tips on how to best use the system.

The training will take place in Studland House, room 103 on Thursday 23rd August, at 13:00pm – 16:00pm.

Get in touch with researchethics@bournemouth.ac.uk if you would like to register your interest and book a place.

June 1, 2018

Research Ethics @ BU

Research Ethics, Research Integritiy sbell

Planning Ahead – A Reminder (Staff & PGRs)

If you’re hoping to start data collection activities at the beginning of September and are in the process of completing your research ethics checklist, please remember that during August there are NO Research Ethics Panel Meetings. If you want to start your data collection activity in August/September, please submit your checklist in time for Panel meetings to be held in June or July. Checklists (for ‘above minimal risk’ projects) received during August will be deferred until the Panels reconvene in September (dates to be advised).

Reviews for low risk projects (Staff and Postgraduate Research) will continue as normal during August.

More details about the review process and Panel meeting dates can be found on the Research Ethics Blog. Email enquiries should be sent to researchethics@bournemouth.ac.uk.

May 21, 2018

Postgraduate Researcher Specialist Training- Spaces Available

PG research, Research Integritiy, Training nstewart

Postgraduate Researchers make sure you are GDPR compliant by this Friday 25 May 2018
*Managing Research Data – Legal Compliance and Record Management – Tuesday 22 May 2018 – 14:00-16:00 Book Now

Specialist Training
*Introduction to NVivo – Thursday 24 May 2018 – 09:00-16:00 Book Now

*Advanced NVivo – Friday 25 May 2018 – 09:00-16:00
email pgrskillsdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk to book

*Please note these sessions are for PGRs only, bookings will be closely monitored.

May 14, 2018

HE Policy Update for the w/e 11th May 2018

Funding opportunities, innovation, international, Public engagement, Research Integritiy, Student Engagement jforster

Fees and funding

Loans and parental contributions – The implication of the means-tested maintenance loan is that parents will make up the difference for those not receiving the full loan (ie if parental income is over £25,000)– parents are not always expecting or planning for this and sometimes parents are unable in practice to make up the difference. This week the Guardian ran It’s a hidden nasty’ quoting Martin Lewis (Moneysavingexpert.com) who said

“it is ‘an absolute abomination’ the government is keeping quiet about how much extra most families must pay. If you aren’t entitled to a full maintenance loan, parents are expected to make up the gap, but what is outrageous is that the Student Loans Company tells you nothing at all about this.“It leads to friction in families and to students being underfunded.”

Moneysavingexpert.com has a table which lists the scale of parental contributions from £605 per year for £30,000 family income to £4,500 for families earning over £62,177. If the above link doesn’t take you straight to it the table is listed under point 11. And the full loan may not be enough anyway. The Guardian article makes the point that the poorest students, who leave with the biggest ‘debt’, still don’t have sufficient funds to cover their daily needs and links to the recent NUS Poverty Commission report. Both UUK and HEPI have called for the reinstatement of maintenance grants so students can afford the basics.

Martin Lewis believes the maintenance loan should be increased:

But Lewis argues if there are limited funds this shouldn’t be the top priority. “If you want social equality you’ve got to face the fact that students haven’t got enough money to live on. The loans aren’t big enough. So I wouldn’t lower tuition fees, or bring back maintenance grants, I’d boost maintenance loans.”

This is Money has an article covering the increasing number of homeowners who are taking equity release deals to support their children through university.

HEPI have a guest blogger who is also a fan of maintenance loans. He begins by describing how the divergence between HE and adult FE is shrinking (crossover due to degree apprenticeships in Universities and level 4-5 vocational sub degrees in FE colleges). Furthermore, due to automation neither FE or HE can meet the economy’s needs alone. Certainly there will be no retraining revolution without re-expanding part-time undergraduate higher education. On this the blogger, Mark Corney, states the debate about reintroducing maintenance grants for full-time higher education students is crowding-out the fact that maintenance loans are being introduced for part-time students from this August.

He argues that even if tuition fees were free its maintenance support that is vital. In addition, the ‘HE and adult FE are different’ orthodoxy has perpetuated a myth which says full-time and part-time HE students need maintenance but adult FE students do not. Only by examining budget-line by budget-line of HE and adult FE funding together does the irrationality and unfairness of the maintenance loans gap become apparent.

The blog suggested an alternative to reintroducing maintenance grants for full-time higher education students is to increase the value of maintenance loans. Students from poor households will not repay their maintenance – or fee – loan if they remain ‘poor’ after graduation: nor will students from wealthier households who become ‘poor’ after graduation. It also suggested raising the income threshold to median gross annual earnings which is currently £28,600 to protect graduates. Whilst extending the repayment period (to state retirement age) to offset the cost to the Treasury.

Mark goes on to discuss the FE, the poor cousin, the complexity of the FE loan arrangements, the barriers and lack of take up. He states the debate over maintenance loans in adult FE is inextricably linked to technical education reform. He discusses introducing maintenance loans for all Level 4-6 technical education and warns: there is a real danger that Level 3 technical education will get stuck in the 16-18 T-level silo. Level 3 technical education must be accessible to adults too, with maintenance loans available to 19-24 year olds.

Interest rates – This is one of the issues that will need to be considered as part of the post-18 review. The Treasury Select Committee has criticised interest rates on student loans as they publish “Student Loans: Government and Office for National Statistics responses to the Committee’s Seventh Report”.

The BBC cover the story here.

Arts, humanities and social sciences – Research Professional report that the British Academy has stated that the UK’s national academies should be in charge of monitoring academic disciplines. The Academy broaches this topic through concern that Academic research, particularly in the arts and humanities, could suffer if universities lose funding for teaching as a result of the [Tertiary Education and funding] review. The article goes on:

Arts, humanities and social sciences could lose out if the government ties tuition fees to graduate earnings or teaching costs, the academy said. This is because they are typically cheaper to teach and lead to lower-paid jobs than science subjects.
The British Academy urged the government to protect funding for these subjects, which it said provide essential skills and research supporting the creative industries and financial, legal and professional services.
“A wholly market-driven approach to education provision brings with it risks and perverse incentives, encouraging short-term rather than strategic management, and potentially stifling growth and innovation,” it said.

Read BU’s response to the HE review and more coverage of the issues in last week’s policy update.

Schools policy

Finally the government have issued a response to the Schools consultation that closed in December 2016 – politics definitely got in the way of this one with the backlash against the grammar schools policy and then the reshuffle. From the archive: a 2016 Wonkhe article by David Morris on the context for all this.

Grammar schools made the news this morning with the announcement of a £50 million fund to support expansion – but not the lifting of the ban on new ones. This will allow annexes and spin-off sites – but there are requirements on wider impact too.

Damien Hinds, the Education Secretary, is interviewed in the Guardian. The Sutton Trust published a response referring to their research:

Gaps In Grammar found that high proportions of grammar school pupils come from the independent primary school sector, roughly double the rate you would expect. In fact, a pupil attending a private prep school is ten times more likely to enter a grammar than a pupil on free school meals.

But what about the requirement for universities to sponsor schools as a condition of registration? It has been watered down to an obligation to do one of 4 things: support teaching development, support curriculum design and delivery, take a leadership role in a school or “other targeted partnership activity”. It looks as if this will be administered through the new Access Agreements. It is clear that they hope – indeed they say that they “expect” more school sponsorship and university run free schools – but it won’t be a pass/fail registration condition.

Skills Shortages

There was a Westminster Hall debate on Wednesday considering skills shortages and skills strategy led of Robert Halfon (Chair, Education Select Committee). He announced that the Edge Foundation had formed an analysis group and would bring together key organisations to provide a more comprehensive approach to monitoring skills shortages in the UK.

Halfon set out four steps that: “would build on the strength of the knowledge-rich curriculum to ensure that it fosters young people who are also skills-rich and behaviours-rich—the areas that employers say they value most.”

Firstly, there had to be a fundamental reimagining of pre-18 education, centred around GCSE provision, with Halfon stating that there was an “opportunity for that phase of education to end in a much more holistic and comprehensive assessment—a true baccalaureate.”
Then there needed to be a broader and more balanced curriculum as it was “essential that we develop the next generation of engineers, entrepreneurs and designers” and that a narrow focus on academic GCSEs was “driving out the very subjects that most help us to do that,” he stated.
Thirdly Halfon said careers advice was vital, and more had to be done to “create deep connections between the world of education and the world of work that inspire and motivate young people.” This included employers providing externships so that teachers could experience local businesses and merging duplicate careers organisations into a national skills service.
Finally he said that destinations for young people leaving schools and colleges had to be moved front and centre, “giving school leaders and teachers the freedom to deliver the outcomes that we want for our young people.” He said that a planned programme of skills reforms could only be a success only if it went hand in hand with a school system that was equally focused on preparing young people for work and adult life.

Halfon continued that the sustained expansion of degree apprenticeships was vital to “fundamentally address the issue of parity of esteem between academic and vocational education, which has plagued this country for far too long“.

He concluded that foundations must be laid in schools through a “broad and balanced curriculum, intensive employer engagement, and destination measures as a key driver of success” which would “create the basis for a holistic system that prepares young people for high-quality T-levels and apprenticeships as part of a blended route that breaks down the artificial divide between academic and technical education to create a real ladder of opportunity for our young people.”

Anne Milton (Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills) added that progress should “not be about who someone knows or actually about what they know, or where they live or where they come from; it should be about what skills they have.” On the curriculum she said that it was “important widen young people’s eyes to the opportunities that are out there” but “a good foundation in certain key subjects, such as English, maths and digital skills” was equally important.

Halfon asked the minister how the Government would enforce schools to implement legalisation to invite apprenticeship organisations and university technical colleges into schools and further education colleges. She said as the legalisation was only introduced in January it will still being monitored.

Widening Participation and Achievement

A manifesto for new Director of Fair Access and Participation – HEPI and Brightside have issued a report calling for the OfS to take specific steps in improving access to HE for those from underrepresented groups. Reaching the parts of society universities have missed: A manifesto for the new Director of Fair Access and Participation has contributions from NUS, Rob Halfon MP (Chair Education Select Committee), the Sutton Trust, and other ‘leading thinkers from academic and university administration, think tanks and the media’.

Taken from the HEPI blog on the report the proposals include:

experimenting with post-qualification admissions;
appointing a Commissioner for Student Mental Health;
requiring targets for students from care;
delivering mandatory unconscious bias training for staff;
granting fee waivers to asylum-seekers;
guaranteeing mentoring for every pupil who wants it;
curbing the use of unconditional offers (see note below);
mandating statistical returns on sexual orientation; and
founding new Oxbridge colleges to widen access.

Chris Millward, Director for Fair Access and Participation at OfS welcomed the manifesto, his response confirms he’ll discuss the ideas and refocuses on those priorities already announced, the push for common data indicators and a radical increase in ambition next year echo recent announcements. Chris said:

I am grateful for this wealth of expert advice, especially the contributions from students. I look forward to discussing these ideas with many of the authors today, and in the coming year as I develop the way that the OfS regulates access and participation.
I am pleased to see that many of the issues given priority are ones that I am already addressing in my guidance to universities and colleges….there are still wide gaps for mature students, for white males from the lowest income groups, and at the universities with the highest admissions requirements. And when students do enter higher education, certain groups also face real barriers to succeeding during and after their studies, particularly Black and Asian students and those with disabilities. I have made it clear to universities and colleges that I expect them to address these issues in their access and participation plans, which the OfS must approve if they wish to charge higher tuition fees.
Students need a genuine choice of routes into higher education at different points of life, including high quality technical routes, such as degree apprenticeships, that will work for students from all backgrounds. Students need a more transparent and sophisticated admissions system that tackles the gap between potential and opportunity at the point of entry.
And students need universities and employers to face up to the reasons for differential outcomes within and beyond higher education, and make changes that mean everyone has a fair chance.
To succeed across all of these areas, the higher education sector will also need more robust and common data, indicators and evidence of “what works”, and a longer term approach to evaluation and target-setting.
We will be focusing on all of these issues during the first year of the Office for Students. In doing so, we want to establish the basis for a radical increase in ambition next year, when we will agree new targets for universities and colleges to reduce the gaps in access, success and progression.

The report was picked up by The Times (focus on Oxbridge expansion) and The Guardian (focus on white working class boys access).

The position on unconditional offers is interesting – the recent wave of feeling against unconditional offers is interesting as previously it was seen as an effective and positive mechanism with which to engage non-traditional learners, especially care leavers. Arguments against it now are that it narrows the WP student’s choice perhaps leading to them selecting a lower status institution because of the unconditional offer rather than aspiring higher; that it may take up a place another ‘more deserving’ student could access; and that those with unconditional offers are not under pressure to perform as well in their level 3 exams.

Opportunity for Everyone

UUK have blogged on the Opportunity for everyone campaign and remind that HE’s role in aiding social mobility is more than increasing the earning potential of graduates:

many graduates lead fulfilling lives in rewarding careers such as nursing, teaching and social work, all of which make immense contributions to society and the economy but pay less on average.

UKK call for the OfS to

‘consider extending the duration of Access and Participation Plans to allow universities to take a longer-term, strategic approach to the issues facing their own university community’ and for ‘the OfS should work to introduce a more strategic and effective approach to target setting and monitoring, including support for universities to contextualise their applicants’ prior achievements’.

The UUK blog notes there is more work to be done by universities on reducing drop out and improving the percentage of good degrees for students from underrepresented backgrounds.

Disabled Students Parliamentary Question

Q – Roger Godsiff: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 24 April 2018 to Question 135864 on Disabled Students’ Allowances, what assessment his Department has made of trends in the level of reliance of disabled students’ on assistive technology.

A – Sam Gyimah: Information on the use of assistive technology in higher education can be found in this 2017 report, commissioned by the then Higher Education Funding Council for England.

International staff and students

Mobility report – Wonkhe summarise the Universities UK International (UUKi) publication of the fourth annual Gone International report. They explain the report again finds more positive outcomes for students (e.g. 4.7% more with firsts and 0.8% more in employment) who have studied abroad than for their peers who haven’t. In addition, this year, new analysis finds positive outcomes for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and for short-term study, work and volunteer placements (up to four weeks). Disadvantaged students are 3.6% less likely to study abroad than their more advantaged peers, despite benefitting more. The report is based on 2015/16 Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey data. 16,580 students chose international study, the highest-ever number, but at only 415 more than the previous year, this remains the same proportion (7.2%). 53.1% of all 2014/15 placements were via Erasmus+, through which the UK received record levels of funding and which the UK government has “guaranteed” to remain part of until 2020. (Summary from Wonkhe.)

International Staff: Parliamentary Question

Q – Gordon Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on the (a) current and (b) future costs of (i) visas and (ii) permanent residency documents for overseas academics to work at UK Universities.

A – Sam Gyimah: Department for Education officials meet regularly with Home Office officials to discuss a range of issues regarding overseas academic staff at UK universities. Border, immigration and citizenship fees are reviewed on an annual basis. The current visa fees are set out in the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018.

Cancelled Visas

Last week we told you about the Test of English for International Communication scandal whereby the Home Office cancelled the visas of 35,000 students suspected of cheating the English fluency test. It was revealed the methods used to determine cheating had a 20% error rate and up to 7,000 genuine students were prevented from studying. This week its reported the NUS have released a report produced following an investigation by their legal firm Bindmans LLP criticising the Government and calling for action and redress. We haven’t been able to find the report itself but The Financial Times have covered the story.

Research Integrity

Sam Gyimah was interviewed for the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee investigation into research integrity. The committee heard that universities should be held responsible for the full compliance of upholding standards of research integrity but the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation declined to assert that funding should be dependent on this. Other topics covered included concordant sign up, self-assessment and disclosure in clinical trials. Read the full summary of the session provided by Dods Consultants here.

Industrial strategy funding opportunities

This week the Government launched several new initiatives and challenges funded through the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund.

Resolving Social Challenges – On Thursday Oliver Dowden (Minister for Implementation) announced a series of competitions for tech firms to develop solutions tackling current social challenges. While the initiatives focus on the business sector some of the topics are interesting. Each contributes to the Government’s Grand Challenges – the data economy; clean growth; reducing plastic waster, tackling loneliness and healthy ageing and the future of mobility – the competition is designed to incentivise Britain’s tech firms to come up with innovative solutions to improve public services.

The forthcoming challenges:

Identifying terrorist still imagery (Home Office). Home Office research shows that more than two-thirds of terrorist propaganda disseminated online is still imagery. This project will support both Government analysis of, and broader efforts to remove, this harmful material.
Tracking waste through the waste chain, submitted by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). A new technological approach could help record, check and track waste, helping boost productivity, reduce costs, and protect both human health and the environment.
Tackling loneliness and rural isolation, submitted by Monmouthshire Council. The government recognises that rural transport is vital to local communities, and businesses. A technological solution, exploiting vehicles with spare capacity could support rural economies.
Cutting traffic congestion, submitted by Department for Transport (DfT). Greater collection and new analysis of data could help target interventions to cut congestion.
Local authorities have large numbers of council vehicles crossing their areas every day. If they can be equipped with innovative data capture systems, they could understand potholes, litter, recycling, parking, air quality and more in real-time, every day, for no added cost. This could mean reduced service delivery costs and better local services.

The first of these competitions opens on Monday 14 May and runs for six weeks, with the remaining competitions being launched in subsequent months. Tech firms bidding to the fund will have free rein to create truly innovative fixes. Winning companies will be awarded up to £50,000 to develop their ideas.

Creative Industries – The Government has announced a funding competition – Audience of the future: demonstrators opening Monday 21 May. £16 million will be invested in 4 large scale creative industries demonstrator projects (£5-£10 million each) through the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund. It aims to explore future global, mass market, commercial opportunities in the creative industries. Primarily this will be through pre-commercial collaboration at scale. Projects should significantly improve the current state of art in their field. The projects must explore new ways of communication with mass audiences (100,000+) using new immersive technologies and experiences that are a significant advancement on the state of art in the chosen area. The high level of innovation and scale should be capable of transforming the sector and replicable across the creative industries. The project should generate audience and consumer information that could be used to test the viability of new business models. The Government suggests that areas with strong potential could include moving images, access to live sporting events, visitor experiences in museums and galleries, and music and theatre performance. See here for more information.

A further £1 million is available for early-stage projects (£20-60k) that seek to understand customer needs for immersive experiences and the tools needed to deliver them. Early-stage projects should use human-centered design and look at audience behaviour to develop ideas for new products and services. Particular areas could include:

advancing the state-of-the-art with immersive experiences that are desirable and fit-for-purpose
producing high-quality immersive content cheaper, faster and in a way that is more accessible
improving physical devices such as eyewear and controllers, or haptic feedback
new digital platforms and services to deliver immersive content

See here for more information on the early-stage projects.

The PM spoke on Tuesday to praise Britain’s arts sector:

But of course, the value of culture and creativity lies not only in its economic strength. Just as important is the less tangible contribution that it makes to our national life. The work you do brings joy to millions. It fosters unity, gives us a common currency. It helps to define and build our sense of national character.
“Without culture […] society is but a jungle”. Your work is a vital part of our national life and our national economy, and I am absolutely committed to supporting it.
Our ambitious sector deal for the creative industries, announced just before Easter, will see a further £150 million invested by government and industry, spreading success and making the sector fit to face the future.

She also announced a £3 million fund of new money to support creative projects within the Northern Powerhouse region on Tuesday. Offering a mix of grants and loans, the social investment fund will be open to non-profit, community-based organisations that deliver a positive social impact. Full speech here.

Nurse Training

Nursing has been in the news again this week. A series of oral parliamentary questions reveal the Government’s unwavering approach towards nurse training and on Wednesday there was a debate on the Government’s plans to remove funding from post-graduate converters into nursing (announced in February). The removal affects the two-year course for those who hold degrees in other subjects. It is controversial as this is the fastest way to train a registered nurse and there is currently a shortage of 40,000 nurses in England. The change brings the post-graduate courses in line with the undergraduate nurse training which has already lost the NUS bursary and now falls under the student loan system.

The Commons debate was secured as a result of opposition pressure, following a report by the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which referenced evidence submitted by the Royal College of Nursing (RCN). The RCN arranged for a number of student nurses, who currently receive post-graduate funding, to visit parliament during April to meet MPs and peers and explain what financial support has meant for them.

Michael Lawton, who received the NHS post-graduate bursary and is currently working as a registered nurse, said:

“Without the bursary I couldn’t have applied and I wouldn’t be in a career I love, giving patients the great care they deserve. I know I make a difference every day. MPs I’ve spoken to are shocked at how many hours we do in clinical placement. By removing the bursary, the Government is asking people to pay to work on placements to keep the NHS afloat and that isn’t right.

Current post-graduate nursing student Georgie Ellmore-Jones said:

“After my undergraduate degree I was already in a lot of debt. When I looked at pursuing a career in nursing and saw it was funded, it made it more certain in my mind that I wanted to do it. At post-graduate level many of the students have families and children to look after so adding more debt will only discourage potential students.”

The Commons vote held for the Government and the postgraduate bursaries will be removed. Responses from the Opposition:

Angela Rayner (Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary) said: “The Government has badly failed the next generation of nurses today by forcing through further cuts to their support and burdening health students with yet more debt”.

Jonathan Ashworth (Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary) said: “The Government’s decision to abolish NHS bursaries has led to a huge fall in numbers applying for these courses and will make the NHS staffing crisis even worse. Now Ministers are pushing ahead with further bursary cuts in the face of all evidence. By cutting bursaries for postgraduate students, the Tories’ vote tonight makes it even harder for people to train to work in the NHS.”

On Tuesday there were a series of oral questions on nursing to the Minister for Health (Stephen Barclay).

Q – Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) & (Lab) Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) & Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op): What assessment he has made of the effect of the withdrawal of NHS bursaries on applications for nursing degrees.

A – The Minister for Health (Stephen Barclay): Nursing remains a strong career choice, with more than 22,500 students placed during the 2017 UCAS application cycle. Demand for nursing places continues to outstrip the available training places.

Q – Gill Furniss: Figures from the Royal College of Nursing show that applications have fallen by 33% since the withdrawal of bursaries. At the same time, the Government’s Brexit shambles has led to a drastic decline in EU nursing applications. How many years of such decline do we have to see before the Secretary of State and the Minister will intervene?

A – Stephen Barclay: What matters is not the number of rejected applicants, but the increase in places—the number of people actually training to be a nurse. The reality is that 5,000 more nurses will be training each year up to 2020 as a result of the changes.

Q – Stella Creasy: The NHS already has 34,000 nursing vacancies. Given that there has been a 97% drop in nursing applications from the EU and that studies show that nearly half of all hospital shifts include agency nurses, will the Minister at least admit that cutting the bursary scheme has been a false economy for our NHS?

A – Stephen Barclay: It is not a false economy to increase the supply of nurses, which is what the changes have done. Indeed, they form part of a wider package of measures, including “Agenda for Change”, pay rises and the return to practice scheme, which has seen 4,355 starters returning to the profession. More and more nurses are being trained, which is why we now have over 13,000 more nurses than in 2010.

Q – Grahame Morris: I respectfully remind the Minister that this is about recruitment and retention. The RCN says that we can train a postgraduate nurse within 18 months, which is a significant untapped resource, so why are the Government planning to withdraw support from postgraduate nurses training, too?

A – Stephen Barclay: We have a debate involving postgraduate nursing tomorrow, but the intention is to increase the number of such nurses by removing the current cap, which means that many who want to apply for postgraduate courses cannot find the clinical places to do so. That is the nature of tomorrow’s debate, and I look forward to seeing the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber.

Q – Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Will my hon. Friend, on top of the degree nursing apprenticeships, rapidly increase the nursing apprenticeship programme so nurses can earn while they learn, have no debt and get a skill that they and our country need?

A – Stephen Barclay: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to signpost this as one of a suite of ways to increase the number of nurses in the profession. As he alludes to, there will be 5,000 nursing apprenticeships this year, and we are expanding the programme, with 7,500 starting next year.

Q – Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD): With every reputable independent body showing very clearly that we have a staffing crisis in the NHS nursing profession, can the Minister explain how cutting bursaries actually improves the situation?

A – Stephen Barclay: I am very happy to do so. We are removing the cap on the number of places covered by the bursaries and increasing the number of student places by 25%, which means that there will be 5,000 more nurses in training as a result of these changes.

Q – Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP): The Secretary of State’s removal of the nursing bursary and introduction of tuition fees have resulted in a 33% drop in applications in England. In Scotland, we have kept the bursary, a carer’s allowance and free tuition, which means that student nurses are up to £18,000 a year better off, and indeed they also earn more once they graduate. Does the Minister recognise that that is why applications in Scotland have remained stable while in England they have dropped by a third?

A- Stephen Barclay: The hon. Lady speaks with great authority on health matters, but, again, she misses the distinction between the number of applicants and the number of nurses in training. It is about how many places are available, and we are increasing by 25% the number of nurses in training. That is what will address the supply and address some of the vacancies in the profession.

Q – Dr Whitford: Workforce is a challenge for all four national health services across the UK, but, according to NHS Improvement, there are 36,000 nursing vacancies in England, more than twice the rate in Scotland. The Minister claims that more nurse students are training, but in fact there were 700 fewer in training in England last year, compared with an 8% increase in Scotland. The key difference is that in Scotland we are supporting the finances of student nurses, so will the Government accept that removing the nursing bursary was a mistake and reintroduce it?

A – Stephen Barclay: The distinction the hon. Lady fails to make is that in England we are increasing the number of nurses in training by 25%; we are ensuring that nurses who have left the profession can return through the return-to-work programme; and we are introducing significant additional pay through “Agenda for Change”. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said, we are also creating new routes so that those who come into the NHS through other routes, such as by joining as a healthcare assistant, are not trapped in those roles but are able to progress, because the Conservative party backs people who want to progress in their careers. Healthcare assistants who want to progress into nursing should have that opportunity.

Q – Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): When defending the decision to scrap bursaries, the Secretary of State said that, if done right, it could provide up to 20,000 extra nursing posts by 2020. Well, that figure now looks wildly optimistic, with applications down two years in a row. Is it not time that Ministers admitted they have got this one wrong and joined the Opposition in the Lobby tomorrow to vote against any further extensions to this failed policy?

A – Stephen Barclay: If Members vote against the policy tomorrow, the reality is that they will be voting for a cap on the number of postgraduate nurses going into the system, and therefore they will be saying that more people should be rejected—more people should lose the opportunity to become nurses—because they want to have a cap that restricts the supply of teaching places.

Consultations

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

Other news

Did you know that Sarah also writes political updates covering specific academic areas on the BU Research Blog,– read the latest one here and watch out for these under the “policy” tag.

Bees: On Tuesday Ben Bradley (Conservative, Mansfield) made his case for a Private Members’ Bill to make provision about the protection of pollinators. Permission to progress the Bill was granted and our regional MP Oliver Letwin will take part in presenting the bill.

Journals: Inside Higher Ed talks of the American Universities ending costly journal subscriptions with major publishers.

Mental Health: The Commons Education, Health and Social Care Committees have published their response to the inquiry on young people’s mental health: The Government’s Green Paper on mental health: failing a generation. An oral parliamentary question was also asked on the topic on Tuesday:

Q – Helen Whately: I welcome the Green Paper on mental health in schools, which was published earlier this year, but it does prompt a question about the mental health of students in further and higher education. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to look into that issue? If he does not, may I urge him to do so?

A – Jackie Doyle-Price: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her continued industry on these matters. As she mentioned, the Green Paper outlined plans to set up a new national strategic partnership focused on improving the mental health of 16 to 25-year-olds. That partnership is likely to support and build on sector-led initiatives in higher education, such as Universities UK’s #stepchange project, whose launch I attended in September. The strategy calls on higher education leaders to adopt mental health as a strategic priority, to take a whole-university approach to mental health and to embed it across policies, courses and practices.

Plastics: The Government have announced a new research and innovation hub to tackle plastic waste in the oceans.

Anti-cheating efforts: The Times has an article on a Lincoln University that is using ‘personalised essays to stamp out plagiarism’. The short article doesn’t go into detail on how the personalisation is achieved except: Degrees at the university, including a course in business, are offering alternative assessments that are both practical and written. A spokesman said: “In this way, the evidence each student produces is highly individual and it would be extremely difficult for an unrelated third party to be able to fulfil the requirements of the assignment brief. Although this method of assessment cannot be used as a panacea to the issue — nor is it appropriate in every situation — it raises the question of how appropriate current assessment methods are and to what extent they evidence personal learning.”

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

November 25, 2017

Fake conferences are not fake news: beware predatory conferences

conferences, international, open access, PG research, Publishing, REF Subjects, Research assessment, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, Research themes, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

Introduction

Academic have been warned for a decade about predatory Open Access publishers (van Teijlingen 2014). These are commercial organisations charging academics a publication fee on submission of their manuscripts with a promise to publish their work quickly online. The problem is twofold: first, these commercial organisations don’t offer proper peer-review and editorial quality assurance; and secondly, academic are being tricked into believing the journal is a legitimate scientific publication. The second author receives on average six to eight invitations a week to publish in this kind of predatory journals – see below for examples. The first author, who despite having not worked in an academic institution for over three years, still receives such invitations to publish in ‘Journal X’.

Predatory conferences

A similar phenomenon to predatory journals is the predatory conference (Moital 2014; Nobes 2017; Grove 2017). These are pretend academic conferences of questionable value, established first and foremost to make money, not for the greater good of the academic discipline.

Both authors have received bogus and legitimate invitations to attend conferences. A predicament with such an invitation, which 99% of time arrives by email, is that it is not easy to distinguish between fake and real offers. For example, the first author recently received an offer (at short notice), to attend a conference in Miami in November 2017 (see below). This was on the back of an editorial he had published couple of months earlier. For a career researcher going from contract to contract, the appeal of being invited to present a keynote at a conference can be flattering, far less an honour and a boost for one’s career. Therefore, while the idea that if it seems too good to be true, is a prudent one to hold; there is also a temptation to follow through.

The author replied to the request quizzing the reason for the invite out of the blue. The answer was less than convincing, and a swift email by the author saying “Don’t tell me… You are offering me a keynote with travel and accommodation… Lol!!” called their bluff and ended correspondence.

But digging a little deeper he found there was a webpage dedicated to taking payments to attend the conference. In the digital world, a fool can be easily and quickly separated from his or her money.

Of course, it may have been a real conference at a real venue, and they really wanted him to speak. But discerning this is not easy at first…

Some of the warning signs/What to look out for

The conference email invitation looks very convincing (if not don’t even read it!).
The venue is good location as Nobes (2017) highlighted, “the organizers are more interested in marketing the tourist destination rather than the academic value of the conference”.
The conference covers too many different aspects or topics, as if the advert is designed to catch the eye of many people as possible who are vaguely connected to the discipline.
Mentions on associated predatory journals and ‘important’ organisations in the discipline.
Email and bank accounts that don’t look professional/ official.
Little mention of attendance fees, but after acceptance emails demanding a high conference fee and other charges.
Conference organisers are not academics, or unknown names.
Conference does not peer-review submission/ not provide proper editorial control over presentations
Signs of copying of names of existing academic conferences or scientific organisation and even copying of their webpages
Even more advertising than normal at a scientific conference.

Furthermore, Andy Nobes (2017) offered some helpful advice on quality of the conference websites in the list below. Andy is based at AuthorAID, a global network providing support, mentoring, resources and training for researchers in developing countries.

Who is at risk of falling for predatory conferences?

Academics need to be aware of money-making conferences and meetings without a true commitment to science. But some academics might be more at risk than others. Young researchers, PhD students and fledgling academics, living from contract to contract may feel any conference attendance is a potential career boost. Thus, such an invitation might seem flattering and an opportunity to good to miss. A way to show that he or she is a capable and independent academic.

Final thoughts

Most academics go to conferences for a combination of presenting their work to get critical feedback, making new contacts, sharing ideas and to be inspired. With such broad combination of motivating factors, the exact purpose of conferences is difficult to ascertain because there is no a priori agreed role and value of conferences (Nicolson, 2017a). However, there is evidence that academic conferences function to facilitate commodity transactions, be that knowledge, tools, skills, reputations, or connections, which reflects the neoliberal ethos in the modern academy (Nicolson 2017b). The predatory conference can be viewed in this light, where academia is more and more focused on generating revenue. It is at best scurrilous, and worst, criminal, for organisations to make money using such a confidence trick. Always check which conferences are organised and advertised by recognised scholarly organisations in your own discipline. If uncertain ask a more experienced academic, a senior colleague or mentor.

Donald J. Nicolson

(Health Services Researcher, NHS Fife, and Independent Scholar; twitter @_mopster )

Edwin R. van Teijlingen

(Centre Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health)

References:

Moital, M. (2014) Ten Signs of a Bogus/Fake Conference.

Grove, J. (2017) Predatory conferences ‘now outnumber official scholarly events’ (26th Oct.)

Nicolson, D.J. (2017a) Do conference presentations impact beyond the conference venue? Journal of Research in Nursing. 22(5), pp.422-425.

Nicolson, D.J. (2017b) Academic Conferences as Neoliberal Commodities, Palgrave Macmillan

Nobes, A. (2017) What are ‘predatory’ conferences and how can I avoid them?

van Teijlingen, E. (2014) Beware of rogue journals.

September 7, 2017

Congratulations to Dr. Jane Fry & colleagues

international, open access, Publishing, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

Congratulations to Jane Fry, Janet Scammell and Sue Barker in the Faculty of Health & Social Science on the publication of their latest paper ‘ Drowning in Muddied Waters or Swimming Downstream?: A Critical Analysis of Literature Reviewing in a Phenomenological Study through an Exploration of the Lifeworld, Reflexivity and Role of the Researcher’.

This innivative paper proceeds from examining the debate regarding the question of whether a systematic literature review should be undertaken within a qualitative research study to focusing specifically on the role of a literature review in a phenomenological study. Along with pointing to the pertinence of orienting to, articulating and delineating the phenomenon within a review of the literature, the paper presents an appropriate approach for this purpose. How a review of the existing literature should locate the focal phenomenon within a given context is illustrated by excerpts from the literature review within a descriptive phenomenological study. This article was recently published in the Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology. Click here for freely available copy online.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

June 27, 2017

Multiple Sclerosis Research in Bournemouth – Dr Simon B N Thompson

BRIAN, BU Challenges, conferences, Fusion, Grants Academy, innovation, international, Public engagement, Research assessment, Research Integritiy, Research themes, staff profile pages Simon Thompson

MS is a chronic debilitating and progressive condition that affects the fatty tissue sheath surrounding nerves. Incomplete innervation due to loss of the myelin sheath is largely responsible for uncoordinated movements. Brain temperature fluctuations are also often seen in people with MS together with fatigue when carrying out mentally or physically demanding tasks. These are commonly associated with excessive yawning yet the cause of fatigue in MS is not well understood.

A recently completed study asked participants to produce saliva into a small tube so that their cortisol levels could be analysed. They were also asked to look at presentations that provoked a yawning response. Results revealed that all of the participants had elevated cortisol levels after yawning and that there was a marked difference in cortisol levels between the healthy participants and those with MS.

Yawning: Pynq Thompson aged 28 days

Thompson Cortisol Hypothesis (Ref.1) proposes threshold levels of cortisol trigger the yawn response which lowers brain temperature. Correlation between brain temperature and cortisol is to be further examined together with comparison between UK and Norwegian participants with MS since the incidence of MS is greater in Scandinavian countries (and Canada and Scotland) possibly due to vitamin D and K reduction with reduced sunlight.

Previous studies have examined electromyograph (EMG) activity during yawning and manipulation of conditions to provoke yawning (Refs. 2,3). Brain regions and cortisol activity has been identified in MS in an international study (Ref. 4); and a new understanding proposed of communication between the motor cortex and brain-stem (Ref.5).

Yawning EMG “envelope” of activity

We have recently completed a trial in Bournemouth that recruited over 80 healthy participants and over 30 people with Multiple Sclerosis (MS).

A funding bid is being prepared to examine the feasibility of producing the early detection of MS and cortisol-insufficiency syndromes using observed yawning frequency and cortisol levels.

Simon B N Thompson is Associate Professor, Bournemouth University; Visiting Professor, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, France. Member of International Scientific Council for Research into Multiple Sclerosis following presentation to French Ambassador, His Excellency Bernard Emié, French Embassy.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to all volunteers; Alister Coleman and Nicola Williams for assisting in data collection and analysis; Rod Slip, Group Co-ordinator and Kay Bundy, Fundraising Co-ordinator of the MS Society Osborne Centre for providing free facilities.

Note

The author would welcome interest in collaborating in writing bids for funding international work.

References

1. Thompson, S.B.N., 2011. Born to yawn? Cortisol linked to yawning: a new hypothesis. Medical Hypotheses, 77, 861-862.
2. Thompson, S.B.N., & Bishop, P., 2012. Born to yawn? Understanding yawning as a warning of the rise in cortisol levels: randomized trial. Interactive Journal of Medical Research, 1(2), e4, 1-9, doi: 10.2196/ijmr.2241.
3. Thompson, S.B.N., Frankham, C., & Bishop, P., 2014. The art of capturing a yawn using the science of nerve impulses and cortisol levels in a randomized controlled trial. Thompson Cortisol Hypothesis as a potential predictor of neurological impairment. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 7(3), 529-543.
4. Thompson, S. B. N., Daly, S., Le Blanche, A., Adibi, M., Belkhiria, C., Driss, T., de Marco, G., 2016. fMRI randomized study of mental and motor task performance and cortisol levels to potentiate cortisol as a new diagnostic biomarker. Journal of Neurology & Neuroscience, 7(2); 92: 1-8.
5. Thompson, S.B.N., 2017. Hypothesis to explain yawning, cortisol rise, brain cooling and motor cortex involvement of involuntary arm movement in neurologically impaired patients. Journal of Neurology & Neuroscience, 8(1); 167: 1-5.

May 19, 2017

SciVal’s Field weighted citation impact: Sample size matters!

Guidance, Publishing, Research assessment, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, writing sastringer

There’s been a buzz on social media recently about Field weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) particularly around the recent leak from the University of Manchester that the FWCI is one of the measures suggested by which to assess academics most at risk of redundancy:

So, these are the proposed criteria I (a historian, remember) wd have to meet to avoid being among the ⁓140 of whom ⁓65 will lose our jobs. pic.twitter.com/voLNnzLsnW

— James Sumner (@JamesBSumner) May 13, 2017

In his recent blog on The Bibliomagician Blog (reposted here with permission) Iain Rowlands a Research Information & Intelligence Specialist at King’s College London and a member of the LIS-Bibliometrics committee questions the stability of the FWCI indicator for sets of fewer than 10,000 documents. Ian invites others to use his methodology to further test his theory…

SciVal’s field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) is an article-level metric that takes the form of a simple ratio: actual citations to a given output divided by the expected rate for outputs of similar age, subject and publication type. FWCI has the dual merits of simplicity and ease of interpretation: a value of 2 indicates that an output has achieved twice the expected impact relative to the world literature. It is a really useful addition to the benchmarking toolkit.

The trouble is that, typically, the distribution of citations to outputs is highly skewed, with most outputs achieving minimal impact at one end and a small number of extreme statistical outliers at the other. Applying the arithmetic mean to data distributed like this, as does FWCI, is not ideal because the outliers can exert a strong leveraging effect, “inflating” the average for the whole set. This effect is likely to be more marked the smaller the sample size.

I explored this effect in a simple experiment. I downloaded SciVal FWCI values for 52,118 King’s College London papers published up until 2014. I then calculated mean FWCI and 95% confidence (or stability) intervals for the whole sample using the bootstrapping[1] feature in SPSS. Then I took progressively smaller random samples (99%, 98%, and so on to 1%, then 0.1%), recalculating mean FWCI and stability intervals each time.

The findings shows how mean FWCI becomes less stable as sample size decreases. Highly cited outliers are relatively uncommon, but their chance inclusion or exclusion makes a big difference, especially as the number of outputs decreases. In this experiment, FWCI values range across four orders of magnitude, from 0.03 to 398.28.

What does this mean for interpreting FWCI, especially when benchmarking? The table below offers some guidance. It shows typical stability intervals around FWCI at different scales. The final column assumes that SciVal spits out a value of 2.20 and shows how that figure should be interpreted in terms of its stability.

It’s pretty clear from this analysis that you need to know when it’s time to stop when you are drilling down in SciVal! Another implication is that there is no sensible justification for quoting FWCI to two let alone three decimal places of precision. I’ve kept the second decimal place above simply for purposes of demonstration.

I am well aware that the guidance above is based on data from just one institution, and may not travel well. If you would like to replicate this experiment using your own data, I’m happy to share my SPSS Syntax file. It automates the whole thing, so you just have to load and go off on a short holiday! Just drop me an email.

Ian Rowlands is a Research Information & Intelligence Specialist at King’s College London and a member of the LIS-Bibliometrics committee.

ian.rowlands@kcl.ac.uk

April 24, 2017

New publication Dr Jenny Hall

international, Public engagement, Publishing, Research Integritiy, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

Congratulations to CMMPH’s Dr. Jenny Hall, Senior Midwifery Lecturer, on the publication of her scientific paper ‘The Spiritual Journey of Infertile Couples: Discussing the Opportunity for Spiritual Care‘ in the journal Religions, see further details here! Jenny has co-authored this paper with academics from Portugal and Ireland.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

April 10, 2017

Workshop: Building resilience in Research and Knowledge Exchange 27/4/17

Funding opportunities, Knowledge Exchange, Research Integritiy emilner

Professor Heather Hartwell will be delivering a workshop on April 27th 2017 that will help participants gain insight into how it is possible to build resilience in the area of Research and Knowledge Exchange.

This session will explore how it may be possible to build resilience in the area of research and knowledge exchange, where rejection for funding and from publishers is common. The speaker will offer their views of how resilience can be built and how to overcome obstacles. There will be the opportunity for discussion around the topic.

For those interested in booking onto the course, please follow the link here.

If you would like further information about the workshop, please contact Ehren Milner (emilner@bournemouth.ac.uk)

April 3, 2017

HE Policy update w/e 31st March 2017

Research Integritiy, Training jforster

This week has of course been all about Brexit with the Article 50 notice formally served on Wednesday. Bu published information for staff and students on Wednesday.

Then the White Paper setting out the plans for the Great Repeal Bill which will deal with arrangements to make UK law work once the UK has left the EU – a challenge given how much EU law has been incorporated into UK laws and regulations. The Bill itself has not been published, but the approach it will take is set out in the White Paper:

“In order to achieve a stable and smooth transition, the Government’s overall approach is to convert the body of existing EU law into domestic law, after which Parliament (and, where appropriate, the devolved legislatures) will be able to decide which elements of that law to keep, amend or repeal once we have left the EU. This ensures that, as a general rule, the same rules and laws will apply after we leave the EU as they did before….
The approach outlined in this White Paper is designed to give businesses, workers, investors and consumers the maximum possible certainty as we leave the EU: but it also needs to provide the flexibility necessary to respond to all eventualities of the negotiation process.
This is a separate process from that by which the Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement to be voted on by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded.
The Great Repeal Bill will not aim to make major changes to policy or establish new legal frameworks in the UK beyond those which are necessary to ensure the law continues to function properly from day one. Therefore, the Government will also introduce a number of further bills during the course of the next two years to ensure we are prepared for our withdrawal – and that Parliament has the fullest possible opportunity to scrutinise this legislation”.
The most controversial part of the proposal relates to powers to make secondary legislation. The White Paper says “This will enable corrections to be made to the laws that would otherwise no longer operate appropriately once we have left the EU, so that our legal system continues to function correctly outside the EU, and will also enable domestic law once we have left the EU to reflect the content of any withdrawal agreement under Article 50.”

So will there be any changes to UK law linked to Article 50 – there are some clues in the White Paper:

Customs bill
Immigration bill
And on consumer protection, the Government intends to bring forward a Green Paper this spring which will closely examine markets which are not working fairly for consumers

What the White Paper says won’t change:

Environmental protection
Worker’s rights and equalities
Participation in European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but not the EU Charter on Human Rights

Read more about the process for Brexit here.

Universities are not mentioned in the paper (except in the introduction where it is noted that the government acted fast to reassure applicants about fees) – there are on-going calls for the question of EU citizens in the UK to be settled fast, along with fee guarantees for students starting in 2018/19. UUK’s priorities for Brexit are set out in their short paper here and there are some interesting views written for the Universities All Party Parliamentary Group here.

Fake Research – UUK has a new blog on fake research following comments in the news about it. The blog helpfully brings together the latest reports and information in this area including the Research Councils UK guidance issued recently.

Higher Education and Research Bill – this will have its third reading in the House of Lords on Tuesday No more amendments have been added since the debate was postponed following the Westminster attacks. However, we know a little bit more about the government’s approach to the opposition and cross bench amendments made by the Lords. The bill will go back to House of Commons (to start its “ping-pong”) after Easter.

For example, of the 5 non-government amendments, one related to the requirement that universities should share information with local authorities to ensure that students are registered to vote. Jo Johnson has written a letter to HEFCE requesting that they do more to encourage institutions to support students to register to vote. They ask HEFCE to develop a best practice model and then encourage universities to use it. This amendment this therefore likely to be removed in the House of Commons

Another provided that the OfS could not approve a provider unless it has been validated for at least 4 years (as now) or has been approved by a Quality Assurance Committee as being full able to maintain the required standard for the duration of its authorisation and that it operates in the public interest and the interest of students. It seems unlikely that this will survive in the House of Commons:

A letter dated 22nd March from Jo Johnson sets out the government’s position that the student protection arrangements should cover this and that there will be a consultation on this as part of a Regulatory Framework consultation in the autumn of 2017.
A letter dated 8^th March from Jo Johnson sets out why the government believes that the current validation arrangements do not work and explains why it should be easier for new providers to be authorised.

The other 4 amendments were:

Requiring UKRI to encourage international collaboration, not allowing students to be treated as long term migrants and not allowing more visa restriction on student or staff immigration more stringent than the day the act is passed – this is likely to be removed in the Commons pending the wider consultation on immigration policy which has been delayed since November
Removing the TEF clause and requiring the OfS to introduce instead a scheme to provide information about quality, which is approved by Parliament and which cannot be used to create a single composite ranking – This is likely to be removed in the Commons but it will be interesting to see if any concessions are made about the TEF. So far subject level TEF has been postponed for a year to allow for 2 years of pilot, but other changes may be forthcoming
A statement that the TEF (or its replacement) cannot be used to rank institutions as to the fees that they charge or the number of students they recruit, in the UK or overseas – this seems unlikely to survive – the student number/immigration issue will be dealt with as above, and the fee issue is so key to the government’s position on fees that it seems very unlikely to be dropped. There has been surprisingly little pick up on this issue – see the VC’s blog on this. There is a blog by Professor Mark Smith here.
The grounds in which institutions can appeal the revocation of their authorisation, so that instead of being on the grounds of an error of fact, a decision being wrong in law or unreasonable, it now just says that institutions can appeal on the grounds that “the decision was wrong” – this seems unlikely to survive – see the letter from Viscount Younger and Lord Young dated 20^th

Apprenticeships – The Commons Select Committee on Education, Skills and the Economy have published a report on apprenticeships which raises a number of concerns about the focus on quantity over quality.

Social Mobility – Justine Greening gave a speech on 30^th March on social mobility. She set out three priorities:

tackling geographic disadvantage
investing in long-term capacity in our system
making sure our education system as a whole really prepares young people and adults for career success

This speech refers to the plans for schools to work with universities but doesn’t give any more information (we are still waiting for the response to the consultation), technical education and widening access to universities.

Category / Research Integritiy

Review of post-18 funding delayed

Student Loans

Research

Research Integrity

Brexit – no deal impact on research and mobility

International Students

Value for money

OfS – performance measures

New Students

Mental Health

Prevent

Widening Participation & Achievement – Care Leavers

Consultations

Other news

Subscribe!

You can’t have missed this

Admissions

Research Integrity

Plagiarism

Contextual Admissions

Researchers’ use of personal data

Brain Drain

Parliamentary Questions

Consultations

Other news

Subscribe!

Fees and funding

Schools policy

Widening Participation and Achievement

International staff and students

Research Integrity

Industrial strategy funding opportunities

Nurse Training

Consultations

Other news

Subscribe!

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Search by popular post topics