BU Research Blog | Student Engagement | Bournemouth University

Category / Student Engagement

6 March 2026

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

Industry collaboration, Knowledge Exchange, Student Engagement Sukanya Ayatakshi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26 February 2026

Starting with Uncertainty: Teaching Technology Entrepreneurship Through Civic Immersion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 December 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21 November 2025

Final day of the ESRC Festival of Social Science

Festival of Learning, Fusion themes, international, PG research, Public engagement, REF Subjects, Student Engagement Edwin van Teijlingen

Saturday 8th November was the final day of the national Festival of Social Sciences (FoSS), which was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Many universities across the Uk organised a wide-ranging set of events. Bournemouth University (BU) organised six events, and on the last day it put up a public-engagement event around its Sonamoni research project at the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) building in Poole. Drowning is the leading cause of death for children aged 6-24 months in Bangladesh, yet it rarely receives the same attention as other global health issues. The Sonamoni project, led by Bournemouth University and the Centre for Injury Prevention and Research, Bangladesh (CIPRB), is an interdisciplinary collaboration with the University of Southampton, the University of the West of England (UWE), the RNLI, and Design Without Borders (DWB) in Uganda.

This £1.6m project has been made possible thanks to a grant from the UK’s National Institute for Health & Care Research (NIHR) through its Research and Innovation for Global Health Transformation programme. Sonamoni is in the process of developing practical, community-based solutions to reduce drowning among 6-24 months’ old children.

The FoSS event at the RNLI earlier this month was presented by BU academics John Powell and Edwin van Teijlingen with a major contribution from BU’s PhD student Md. Shafkat Hossain, whose doctoral studies focuses on the local community’s understanding of, and engagement with, the Human-Centred Design element of the Sonamoni project. Prof. van Teijlingen, from BU’s School of Health & Care, introduced the project and he highligthed the harmony between the different social science disciplines of the members of the international research team as well as the interdisciplinary nature of this collaboration. The FoSS event was prepared and supported by BU’s Yasemin Oksel Ferraris and Claire Fenton.

One of the ideas generated by the Sonamoni project, which involves local community involvement at all stages of the study, is a low cost playpen to keep young children save. John Powell MBE outlined the Human-Centred Design process and the eight potential solutions it generated. The FoSS event on the Saturday morning focused particulary on the design stages of the playpen, from concept to a model that could be tested in the field in rural Bangladesh. The colourful first batch of playpens in the photo are ready to be taken to families to be tested in the two field sites. The audience of the FoSS event was particularly interested ways the researchers in Bangladesh managed to get and keep the community involved in this very applied research.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery and Women’s Health

31 October 2025

BU Festival of Social Sciences invite at RNLI

international, Knowledge Exchange, Public engagement, Student Engagement Edwin van Teijlingen

Yesterday we received the postcards to advertise our Festival of Social Sciences (FoSS) ‘Sonamoni’ event which will be held in the beautiful RNLI building on West Quay Road in Poole on Saturday 8th November. This public event focusing on drowning prevention in Bangladesh is free and can be booked online, click here! The FoSS is a UK-wide festival every autumn. It is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) to promote social science research with the general public. The FoSS comprises events ranging from exhibitions, lectures and panel debates through to performances, guided walks and workshops. We would like to thank the ESRC for its support for its support, which includes producing the postcards, and the coffee and teas to be served at the RNLI on Saturday November 8th.

The Sonamoni Project is dedicated to reducing drowning deaths among newly mobile children (under 2 years) by working closely with rural communities in Bangladesh. Using human-centred design (HCD) techniques, the project is identifying solutions, developing prototypes, and assessing their effectiveness. This exciting project is funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) using UK aid from the UK government to support the improvement of global health through high-quality research.

Sonamoni is coordinated by Bournemouth University in collaboration with our partners: the University of the West of England (Bristol), the University of Southampton, and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), Design Without Border (DWB) in Uganda and the Centre for Injury Prevention and Research, Bangladesh (CIPRB).

23 April 2025

A compassionate approach to Simulation: new national blog post published

Student Engagement chemmings

The Association for Learning Developers in Higher Education (ALDinHE) have a national blog focussing on pedagogic practice and the student experience. Una Brosnan (Paramedic Science) and Debbie Holley (Nursing Sciences) collaborated to create the blog (extracts below) and the full blog is available here https://aldinhe.ac.uk/take5-122-from-accidents-to-aquariums-a-compassionate-approach-to-simulation/

#Take5 #122 From accidents to aquariums: a compassionate approach to simulation

“The world of simulation and immersive learning technologies is developing rapidly and in parallel to the existing and predicted future requirements of health and care on a global scale”.

[Enhancing education, clinical practice and staff wellbeing. A national vision for the role of simulation and immersive learning technologies in health and care HEE, 2020]

This #Take 5 reflects upon ways in which paramedic students responded to a compassionate pedagogical approach to debriefing groups after a high intensity simulation experience. Their experience through changing the ambience of the debrief transformed their session from one where students reported anxiety, insecurity where lecturing staff noticed students showing signs of stress to relaxed bodies, a calm atmosphere and a readiness for self and peer reflections. This was now a space where individual voices could be heard, and deep learning took place.

Studies have shown that students can find clinical simulation to be extremely stressful and anxiety provoking (Jowesy et al. 2020 and Mills et al. 2016). Could a potential solution to controlling the amount of stressor added by the educator be to embed compassionate pedagogies in clinical simulation training? Compassionate pedagogy is a teaching approach that emphasizes empathy, care, and understanding in the educational process by focusing on and creating a respectful and understanding learning environment. Here the students’ emotional, personal, and academic needs are recognised, fostering both their professional competence and well-being. This method enhances the development of compassionate, patient-centered care by modelling empathy in the educational process.

This short illustrative video clip shows the contrast between a high stress, high intensity environment (a rail crash scenario where students were expected to triage and the treat mannequins with different injuries) to their low stress environment (a virtual aquarium of tropical fish swimming and soothing water ripple sounds) enabled by using the resources available in an immersive classroom – a Blended Learning Interactive Simulation Suite (BLIS). The ‘classroom’ is a mixed reality platform, comprising three fully interactive walls, with any imaginable scenario projected onto them, with video, audio and tactile capabilities.

Creating an atmosphere of quiet and calm is enabled through transforming the immersive classroom into an ‘aquarium’, with rippling water and fish swimming. This dramatically different space offers the student an atmosphere reducing stress and anxiety caused by the simulation and a place to consolidate their learning.

https://youtu.be/ygFshwj-kSQ?si=fk2Jog11IspjvqQ7

21 February 2025

BU-Lush Cosmetics Ltd collaboration to Develop Renewable Zero Carbon Emissions Energy Technology

Awarded & submitted bids, conferences, Industry collaboration, innovation, Knowledge Exchange, PG research, REF Subjects, Student Engagement, student research Zulfiqar Khan

This is a landmark collaborative initiative between BU’s NanoCorr, Energy and Modelling (NCEM) Research Group led by Professor Zulfiqar Khan and team members including Dr Adil Saeed, Dr Mayank Anand and Aerk Dimri and Lush Cosmetics Ltd a major stakeholder in the conurbation. “Born in Poole, Lush offers a range of quirky and unique handmade bathing and cosmetic products with signature ‘Lush’ scents. The brand boasts an extremely ethical promise to consumers with all products being cruelty free, vegetarian and ethically sourced.” [Source]. “Lush Limited is a British cosmetics retailer which is headquartered in Poole, England. It was founded in 1995 by trichologist Mark Constantine, his wife Mo Constantine and five other founders.” [Source].

“We laid the foundation for capitalising on tidal energy sources and providing clean energy solutions for local and regional domestic and commercial applications through Community Interest Company (CIC) / Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), Poole Tidal Energy Partnership (PTEP), more than a decade ago, said Professor Zulfiqar Khan, one of the founding directors of PTEP.

This work led to UK based energy company collaboration in BU’s energy research: capture, conversion and storage through full funding of two PhDs, two Post Docs, one PhD in-kind support, industrial labs resources and funding patent applications, a three quarter of a million pound sterling research portfolio led by Professor Zulfiqar Khan. This has yielded in commercial patents in the US and GB, covering novel nano fluids, energy systems (capture, conversion and storage).

“This recent collaboration with LUSH is a testament of our full commitments to UNSDGs, UK and EU clean energy directives, initiatives which has led to emergence of BU as a global leader in Clean Energy Systems,” Professor Zulfiqar Khan added.

Dr Saeed said, “we provide opportunities for our UG/PGT courses to benefits from our research collaborations to enhance students learning and teaching experience through research informed educational provisions.” Dr Saeed, the Programme Leader of Mechanical Engineering course, said, we currently have three final year projects in energy systems which have been inspired and are linked to BU-LUSH collaborative project.

LUSH Creative Technologist Jim Woodward said, “We look forward to starting this journey with Professor Khan, his colleagues and students at Bournemouth University, researching the potential tidal energy in our beautiful Poole Harbour. We welcome the newly appointed PGR and wish him good luck in this exciting PhD project with us. What a force – Lush a local Poole company working with a fantastic local University.”

10 October 2024

SUNRISE for sustainability research

Awarded & submitted bids, Student Engagement, student research mbobeva

Join us at the SUNRISE international forum on the 23 October from 8:30-11am in F104 and on Zoom, the final and largest event of a series of interactive hybrid events designed to celebrate sustainability research.

We welcome those working on sustainability-focused projects and anyone else who is passionate about sustainability: faculty members, students of all levels, alumni, and individuals from diverse professional and educational backgrounds.

The SUNRISE project is a collaborative initiative between Bournemouth University (BU) and Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), funded by The British Council. The project aims to enhance UK-Malaysian Higher Education collaboration and student mobility by fostering innovation, sustainability research and networking.

The work from these events is also showcased through the SUNRISE padlet.

The main focus of the event remains to be on enhancing research capacity. We will begin by celebrating the sustainability projects of BU PGR and USM, as they present their innovative work. In addition, attendees will participate in discussion panels, sharing what inspires them about sustainability, reflecting on their experiences, and exploring potential opportunities to connect and collaborate with fellow students and colleagues.

The session will culminate with the launch of the SUNRISE Sustainability Champion Award introduced by the BU Sustainability team to recognise and celebrate students’ contributions to sustainability within their BU experience.

For the SUNRISErs joining us in person at BU (F104) on the 23rd, there will be a light breakfast provided.

Please complete this REGISTRATION FORM to reserve your place at the event.

Looking forward to seeing you in person or online at the SUNRISE on the 23rd October !

The SUNRISE project team

7 October 2024

Student Research Opportunity

Fusion, international, Knowledge Exchange, Research Integritiy, Student Engagement, student research efisher

As the new academic year begins, so does the recruitment process for a new cohort of Missing Persons Indicator Project researchers. This year, as well as recruiting law students to the project, we are presenting this opportunity to budding researchers across the university. Notably, a new collaboration between the FMC and BUBS has emerged, enhancing the interdisciplinary approach of the project.

In collaboration with the International Commission on Missing Persons, students have begun the process of collating indicators to capture the way States engage with, and seek to solve, missing persons cases. These indicators range from understanding contextual factors that could have contributed to a surge of missing persons cases, such as conflict or natural disasters, to international treaty ratification, to domestic legislation.

In light of recent headlines concerning conflicts across the globe, students have likely been exposed to stories that highlight the pressing issues of our time, such as missing persons. This voluntary research project offers them a unique opportunity to engage with work that has real-world significance, showing how research can extend beyond the university to make a meaningful impact.

Our expectations:

Dedicate approximately 8 hours a month to the project (flexible around university commitments).
Attend in-person meetings, skills workshops and data collating sessions.
Be keen to develop research skills.
Work respectfully within a diverse team.

Student experience:

Support into real-world research with lasting impact.
Assist in articulating the project into written form to enhance employability.
Optional research skills workshops.
Inter-disciplinary learning.
Feedback opportunities.
A well-stocked snack cupboard.

If you feel this opportunity would benefit students in your faculty, discipline, or program, please email indicators@bournemouth.ac.uk to request the necessary recruitment paperwork or to arrange a drop-in talk for your students.

4 October 2024

Impact of virtual reality on the well-being and travel experiences of people affected by dementia

BU Challenges, Fusion, Fusion themes, Knowledge Exchange, PG research, REF Subjects, Student Engagement mheward

I am undertaking a research placement as part of my studies on the MSc Foundations of Clinical Psychology. In my role as a research assistant, I have been working on a project that aimed to introduce the idea of travelling using Virtual Reality headsets for people with dementia and their caregivers/ family members. Virtual reality (VR) technology presents a promising means of bridging geographical divides and empowering individuals with dementia to participate in their communities in ways that were not possible prior to diagnosis. Additionally, research has demonstrated the value of virtual reality in helping people with dementia remember their past, revisit their hometown, or most treasured vacation spots. The purpose of this project is to evaluate how virtual reality can support people with dementia with travel and explore the impact on their wellbeing.

This is a collaborative pilot research study involving BU staff from the Ageing and Dementia Research Centre (ADRC) (Dr. Michelle Heward, Dr. Catherine Talbot, Dr. Michele Board, Dr Aisling Flynn, Lyndsey Bradley) and the International Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Research (ICTHR) (Dr. Daisy Fan, Prof. Dimitrios Buhalis) alongside colleagues from PramaLife (Sue Warr and Jo Keats) and is funded with QR funding from the Department of Psychology. We collected data on campus, and I was able to support this and had an opportunity to engage with the participants. The participants were asked to come to 2 sessions. The first session consisted of a session in the Blended Learning Interactive Simulation Suite, also known as the BLISS room. In this room, the participants and their caregivers were given the chance to play interactive VR games of their choice on the walls or visit different parts of the UK, such as London and Oxford. The second session consisted of using the VR headsets, where the participants were able to use the headsets themselves, which allows them to virtually experience other parts of the world, by looking around and having access to a 360 view, of a location of their choosing, whether that be somewhere they had never been to or reminisce about places they have been.

Given this immense opportunity to relive and reminisce about their previous experiences around the world, and their respective homes, the reception was overall a positive one. The participants left feeling positive about having virtually visited places from their past and having engaged with places they have never been to or would like to go to in the future. They provided some useful insights and feedback to inform future research in this area. We now move towards analysing and publishing the data.

Roshin Sibu

For more information about this project please email Michelle mheward@bournemouth.ac.uk

2 September 2024

Iridescent Spider Webs: BU NCCA Undergraduate Student Success at SIGGRAPH’24

conferences, Publishing, REF Subjects, staff profile pages, Student Engagement, student research Eike Falk Anderson

The 51st International Conference & Exhibition on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH’24), the international annual conference for the Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM, the world’s foremost computing society) was held in Denver, Colorado in August.

Among the work showcased at the conference was the poster “O, What an Iridescent Web We Weave: Rendering Physically Inspired Spider Webs for Visual Effects” by Vaya Simeonova (Grigorova) from this year’s graduating cohort (Computer Animation Technical Arts – CATA, Level 6) of the National Centre for Computer Animation (NCCA, Faculty of Media and Communication) and co-authored by Dr Eike Falk Anderson.

The poster paper is based on Vaya’s final year Research & Development Project unit project “An Exploration of the Optical Properties of Spider Web Fibres”, which resulted in the development of a physically inspired method for rendering CG spider webs that display the iridescent properties, observable in real-world spider webs.

The method achieves this in a manner that does not require a computationally expensive and bespoke/proprietary software solution, but instead works with industry standard, off-the-shelf, visual effects (VFX) software, meaning it can effortlessly be integrated into existing VFX production pipelines. The project was also one of five submissions featured in the SIGGRAPH’24 “Posters Highlights” video.

After being accepted as one of the 70 posters presented at this year’s SIGGRAPH conference, the world’s Premier Conference & Exhibition on Computer Graphics & Interactive Techniques, Vaya’s contribution (poster 32), was invited to the first round of the prestigious ACM Student Research Competition (SRC) sponsored by Microsoft, shortlisted as a semi-finalists, and presented to a panel of experts in the SRC Final Presentation. The jury, who enjoyed Vaya’s presentation and appreciated her demonstrated knowledge of prior research, were impressed by her execution of the work and its practicality, for which they awarded Vaya the Second Place in the ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Student Research Competition in the undergraduate category.

After Ben Knowles (with Dr Oleg Fryazinov) who was awarded second place at SIGGRAPH’15 for “Increasing realism of animated grass in real-time game environments“, Teemu Lindborg and Philip Gifford (with Dr Oleg Fryazinov) who were semi-finalists at SIGGRAPH’17 for “Interactive parameterised heterogeneous 3D modelling with signed distance fields”, Quentin Corker-Marin (with Dr Valery Adzhiev and the late Professor Alexander Pasko) who achieved second place at SIGGRAPH’17 for “Space-time cubification of artistic shapes“, Bianca Cirdei (with Dr Eike Falk Anderson) who was awarded 1st place at SIGGRAPH’18 for her exceptional project “Withering fruits: vegetable matter decay and fungus growth” and Laura Mann (with Dr Oleg Fryazinov) who won second place at SIGGRAPH’19 for “3D printing for mixed reality hands-on museum exhibit interaction“, this is the first time since the start of the COVID’19 pandemic that an NCCA undergraduate student has progressed to the final round in this prestigious competition.

28 May 2024

Growing volume of migrant workers’ health research

international, PG research, Student Engagement, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

Last week we found out that the paper ‘Moral panic, fear, stigma, and discrimination against returnee migrants and Muslim populations in Nepal: analyses of COVID-19 media content’ was published by the Journal of Media Studies [1]. This latest paper is co-authored by Dr. Nirmal Aryal and Dr. Pramod Regmi in the Department of Nursing Sciences, Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen in the Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health (CMWH), as well as former BU employee Dr. Shovita Dhakal Adhokari. The published paper addresses the effects of COVID-19 stereotyping and so-called ‘othering’ on migrant workers returning home to Nepal is the latest article in a long line of publications by Faculty of Health and Social Sciences (FHSS) academics.

This BU team (including former and current PhD students) has published over thirty papers on a wide range of aspects related to migrant and their work, health and well-being [2-31].

References:

Aryal, N., Regmi, P., Adhikari Dhakal, S., Sharma, S., van Teijlingen, E. (2024) Moral panic, fear, stigma, and discrimination against returnee migrants and Muslim populations in Nepal: analyses of COVID-19 media content, Journal of Media Studies, 38(2):71-98. http://111.68.103.26/journals/index.php/jms/article/viewFile/7846/4025
Chaudhary MN, Lim V-C, Faller EM,Regmi P, Aryal N, Mohd Zain SN, Azman AS, Sahimin B. (2024) Assessing the basic knowledge and awareness of dengue fever prevention among migrant workers in Klang Valley, Malaysia. PLoS ONE 19(2): e0297527. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297527
Khanal, S.P., van Teijlingen, E., Sharma, M., Acharya, J., Sharma, C., Kharel, S., Gaulee, U., Bhattarai, K., Pasa, R.B., Bohora, P. (2024) Risk Perception and Protective Health Measure Regarding COVID-19 among Nepali Labour Migrants’ Returnee from India. KMC Journal, 6(1): 313–330. https://doi.org/10.3126/kmcj.v6i1.62364
Gyawali, K., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E.R., Manandhar, S., Silwal, R.C. (2023). Sexual Harassment Among Nepali Non-Migrating Female Partners of International Labor Migrant Men. Journal of Health Promotion, 11(1): 22–31. https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/jhp/article/view/61198
Chaudhary MN, Lim V-C, Sahimin N, Faller EM, Regmi P, Aryal N, Azman AS (2023) Assessing the knowledge of, attitudes towards, and practices in, food safety among migrant workers in Klang Valley, Malaysia, Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2023.102620.
Manandhar, S., Simkhada, P., Brown, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2023) Impact of Men’s Labour Migration on Non-migrating Spouses’ Health: A Systematic Review, Qeios, July 16, https://www.qeios.com/read/BX9WFC.2
Adhikari, Y.R., Regmi, P.R., Devkota, B., van Teijlingen, E.R. (2022) Forgotten health and social care needs of left-behind families of Nepali migrant workers. Journal of Health Promotion, 10(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.3126/jhp.v10i1.50976
Khatri, R., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P. (2022) The health and well-being of female labour migrants from: A qualitative study of stakeholder views, Europasian Journal of Medical Sciences (EJMS) accepted
Aryal, N., Sedhain, A., Regmi, P.R., KC, R.K.,& van Teijlingen, E. (2021). Risk of kidney health among returnee Nepali migrant workers: A survey of nephrologists. Asian Journal of Medical Sciences, 12(12), 126–132.
Aryal, N., Regmi, P.R., Sedhain, A., KC, R.K., Martinez Faller, E., Rijal, A., van Teijlingen, E. (2021) Kidney health risk of migrant workers: An issue we can no longer overlook. Health Prospect 20(1):15-7
Khanal, S. P., van Teijlingen, E., Sharma, M. K., Acharya, J., & Sharma, S. (2021). Perceived threats towards COVID-19 pandemic among Nepali migrant workers returned from India. Journal of Health Promotion,9(01), 87–99.
Aryal, N., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E., Trenoweth, S., Adhikary, P., Simkhada, P. (2020) The Impact of Spousal Migration on the Mental Health of Nepali Women: A Cross-Sectional Study, International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health 17(4), 1292; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041292
Adhikary, P., Aryal, N., Dhungana, R.R., KC, R.K., Regmi, P.R., Wickramage, K.P., Duigan, P., Inkochasan, M., Sharma, G.N., Devkota, B., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P. (2020) Accessing health services in India: experiences of seasonal migrants returning to Nepal. BMC Health Services Research 20, 992. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05846-7
Regmi, P., Aryal, N., van Teijlingen, E., Adhikary, P. (2020) Nepali migrant workers and the need for pre-departure training on mental health: a qualitative study, Journal of Immigrant & Minority Health 22, 973–981.
Adhikary, P. van Teijlingen, E. (2020) Support networks in the Middle East & Malaysia: A qualitative study of Nepali returnee migrants’ experiences, International Journal of Occupational Safety & Health (IJOSH), 9(2): 31-35.
Simkhada, B., Sah, R.K., Mercel-Sanca, A., van Teijlingen, E., Bhurtyal, Y.M., Regmi, P. (2020) Health and Wellbeing of the Nepali population in the UK: Perceptions and experiences of health and social care utilisation, Journal of Immigrant & Minority Health 23(2): 298–307.
OM [International Organization for Migration]. (2019) Health vulnerabilities of cross-border migrants from Nepal. Kathmandu: International Organization for Migration.
Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E., Mahato, P., Aryal, N., Jadhav, N., Simkhada, P., Syed Zahiruddin, Q., Gaidhane, A., (2019) The health of Nepali migrants in India: A qualitative study of lifestyles and risks, Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health 16(19), 3655; doi:10.3390/ijerph16193655.
Dhungana, R.R., Aryal, N, Adhikary, P., KC, R., Regmi, P.R., Devkota, B., Sharma, G.N., Wickramage, K., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P. (2019) Psychological morbidity in Nepali cross-border migrants in India: A community-based cross-sectional, BMC Public Health 19:1534 https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7881-z
Aryal, N., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Mahato, P. (2019) Adolescents left behind by migrant workers: a call for community-based mental health interventions in Nepal. WHO South East Asia Journal of Public Health 8(1): 38-41.
Aryal, N., Regmi, P.R., Faller, E.M,, van Teijlingen, E., Khoon, C.C., Pereira, A., Simkhada, P. (2019) ‘Sudden cardiac death and kidney health related problems among Nepali migrant workers in Malaysia’ Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 9(3): 755-758. https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/25805
Adhikary P, van Teijlingen E., Keen S. (2019) Workplace accidents among Nepali male workers in the Middle East and Malaysia: A qualitative study, Journal of Immigrant & Minority Health 21(5): 1115–1122. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10903-018-0801-y
Simkhada, P.P., van Teijlingen, E.R., Gurung, M., Wasti, S. (2018) A survey of health problems of Nepalese female migrants workers in the Middle-East & Malaysia, BMC International Health & Human Rights 18(4): 1-7. http://rdcu.be/E3Ro
Adhikary P, Sheppard, Z., Keen S., van Teijlingen E. (2018) Health and well-being of Nepalese migrant workers abroad, International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care 14(1): 96-105. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMHSC-12-2015-0052
Adhikary, P., Sheppard, Z., Keen, S., van Teijlingen, E. (2017) Risky work: Accidents among Nepalese migrant workers in Malaysia, Qatar and Saudi, Health Prospect 16(2): 3-10.
Simkhada, P.P., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E., Aryal, N. (2017) Identifying the gaps in Nepalese migrant workers’ health and well-being: A review of the literature, Journal of Travel Medicine 24 (4): 1-9.
Aryal, N., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Adhikary, P., Bhatta, Y.K.D., Mann, S. (2016) Injury and Mortality in Young Nepalese Migrant Workers: A Call for Public Health Action. Asian-Pacific Journal of Public Health 28(8): 703-705.
Sapkota, T., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2014) Nepalese health workers’ migration to United Kingdom: A qualitative study. Health Science Journal 8(1):57-74.
Adhikary P, Keen S and van Teijlingen E (2011). Health Issues among Nepalese migrant workers in the Middle East. Health Science Journal.5(3):169-i75 DOI: 2-s2.0-79960420128.
van Teijlingen E, Simkhada, P., Adhikary, P. (2009) Alcohol use among the Nepalese in the UK BMJ Rapid Response: www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/oct20_1/b4028#223451
Adhikary, P., Simkhada, P.P., van Teijlingen E., Raja, AE. (2008) Health & Lifestyle of Nepalese Migrants in the UK, BMC International Health & Human Rights 8(6). Web address: www.biomedcentral.com/1472-698X/8/6

3 May 2024

Studying for M.Res. in CMWH

international, PG research, Student Engagement, student research Edwin van Teijlingen

Now accepting research students in the Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health (CMWH)

A Master’s by Research (M.Res.) is a great introduction to the research process, enabling the student to explore a specific area under the supervision of experienced researchers. It contains little or no formal taught component. This type of study gives you the chance to explore a research topic over a shorter time than a more in-depth Ph.D. M.Res. students can undertake a one year full-time or two years part-time Master’s degree. For more details see here.

CMWH is currently accepting MRes (and PhD) applications in the following areas:

Early / latent phase labour (Prof. Vanora Hundley)

Infant feeding (Asso. Prof. Catherine Angell)

Pain management, pain education, musculoskeletal and pelvic pain, pelvic floor muscle dysfunction, women’s health (Prof. Carol Clark)

Women’s health in a changing global climate (Dr. Becky Neall)

Drowning prevention in low-and-middle-income countries (Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen)

Cardiometabolic health during pre-conception and pregnancy (Dr. Sumanto Haldar)

Exercise and pregnancy (Dr. Malika Felton)

Chronic musculoskeletal pain, lifestyle factors, human metabolism, and the use of data science in the pain field (Dr. Omer Elma)

Women’s alcohol consumption and nutritional status (Dr. Chloe Casey)

Nutrition in women’s health (including LGBT+ populations) (Dr. Sarah Hillier)

12 April 2024

New video summarises article on developing socio-emotional intelligence in doctoral students

BRIAN, Knowledge Transfer, open access, PG research, Publishing, Student Engagement, Women's Academic Network cdevisrozental

Graphical Abstract

Disseminating research in different mediums can be an effective way to reach wider audiences. Using video, illustrations and other types of graphic design and creative media can also bring research to life.

This new video summarises the paper in the Journal Encyclopedia titled “Developing the socio-emotional intelligence of doctoral students” by Principal academic at BU Dr Camila Devis-Rozental

It explores socio-emotional intelligence (SEI) within the context of doctoral supervision in the UK and it presents a variety of interventions that can be implemented throughout the doctoral journey to make a positive impact on the doctoral students’ SEI development and in supporting them to flourish and thrive in academia and beyond.

You can access the video Here

You can read the article Here

18 March 2024

HE policy update No 7: 18th March 2024

international, Student Engagement jforster

This week’s update looks at some ministerial statements, what the OfS has learned from its funded project son mental health and wellbeing, employability and what works, a look at foundation years, who does them, and the outcomes, more on international students and the review of the post-graduate work visa, and the OfS are taking a fresh look at grant funding for universities.

The outlook for research at UK universities

Research Professional held an event recently and had some interesting speakers. They report on a speech by Jessica Corner, the executive chair of Research England:

“It may be that our research and innovation system is beginning to contract a little bit,” Corner told delegates, having spoken about expectations that the sector is likely to be “entering into a more financially constrained few years”.
She said that analysis by UK Research and Innovation, the parent agency of Research England, had shown that the higher education sector is contributing around £5 billion a year to UK research, “which makes universities actually one of the biggest funders of research overall”.
With data suggesting falling numbers of international students, whose fees provide crucial financial support for universities, “there will be less to cover research”, Corner suggested….
Corner suggested that if the UK’s research sector does contract in scale, “that doesn’t mean to say it’s necessarily contracting in what it delivers”. She said that the opportunity offered by artificial intelligence to boost productivity is “huge”. “We need to carry on with the investment that we’ve got, but we’re going to have to be very smart with it,” she said.

At the same event the Science Minister, Andrew Griffith, spoke and amongst other things he addressed the funding point and also suggested that the new UKRI head, when Ottoline Leyser stands down in June 2025, may be from industry rather than the sector

Griffith said he wanted “true diversity, meaning the widest range of backgrounds and experiences”. He said new leadership “could well be from inside the sector, but also they could be from the top of the business world, or someone who has come from a professional services organisation”.
Griffith’s predecessor as science minister, George Freeman, has also recently told Research Professional News that new UKRI leadership “cannot just be traditional academic administration” and that there should be “a more business-like, more focused, accountable, output-orientated delivery culture in UKRI”…
The science minister was also asked about comments made by Donelan at the Lords committee that ministers do not think there is a crisis in university funding. Griffith said “we overuse the word crisis” and that universities are not alone in facing a period of “really intense macro change” affecting many countries. “We should expect that we are going to have some challenges to work through some of that,” he said.
Griffith was vocal about the importance of the UK higher education sector and that the “recipe for success must begin with our universities”, which are an “absolute magnet for the very best in global talent”. “We are, as far as I can possibly tell, the most open and diverse country on the planet in that respect,” he said.
Asked about how the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is engaging with the Home Office about widespread sector concerns about changes to the UK immigration system, Griffith said this was being done “diligently”. He also said the UK must not “talk ourselves down” in terms of attractiveness to international talent, in order to prevent a “self-fulfilling prophecy, which would help nobody”.

Employability

Wonkhe has a blog on work-related experiences that is worth a read with some ideas that can sit alongside placements as a way of building work-relevant experience into courses, especially given the practical difficulties with placements that arise for some students and some sectors. Ideas include:

More integration between employers and universities throughout the curriculum
Using university technical services to develop hands on learning on campus
Ensuring “work-like experience” in the curriculum and finding a different way of talking about what we already do in terms of employment and employer based learning so that students realise what they are getting and its value
Recognising the wider benefits beyond employability through projects in partnership with employers
Acknowledging the practical issues and supporting access to opportunities
Leaning into virtual experiences
Putting the resources in to support delivery

And while we are on the theme of placements, the OIA has published some notes on cases they have heard. There are a lot of good points in here, some are summarised here.

Whatever the context of the placement, it’s important that students are given clear and accurate information about it. Students need to know what’s expected of them and where and how to access support while they’re on placement. It’s also important that providers have processes in place to respond when things go wrong.

Providers will sometimes need to work with placement organisations outside of the local area.
- It’s important to manage students’ expectations about the possible location of their placement, for example by explaining what the provider considers to be a reasonable time and/or distance to travel.
- For some students there will be considerations to take into account when deciding where to place them, for example accessibility needs, caring responsibilities or transport considerations that might make commuting to a placement more difficult.
- Providers can usefully signpost students to any sources of financial support, either at the provider or elsewhere, that may be available to help with any costs associated with the placement. Where it’s not possible to offer a placement within the expected area, the provider may want to consider whether it would be reasonable to support the student with any additional expenses they may incur as a result of being offered an out of area placement.
- It’s also important to tell students in good time what placement they have been allocated so that they have time to make any arrangements they may need to.
It’s important that students know in advance where they can go for advice and support whilst on placement.
- It is good practice for providers to ensure that students have a named staff member at the provider that they can liaise with, as well as a named mentor at the placement organisation.
- Some students may need additional support during the placement, for example because they are disabled or have caring responsibilities. The provider should explore in advance how those support needs might be met, and whether the provider or the placement organisation will be responsible for meeting them. …

And much more…

Mental health and wellbeing

The OfS funded a set of projects and they have now been evaluated. There’s a report and all sorts of analysis, but the one page summary sets out a set of effective practice for addressing barriers to support for a set of target groups and also some conclusions:

Co-creation with students is critical for support to strongly align to need.
Tailored outreach was the most effective method to reach targeted groups supplemented through ‘snowball’ techniques with students.
Describing services with positive framing and avoiding over medicalised descriptions in language tailored to targeted audiences was vital.
Developing strategic, multi-agency partnerships internal and external to lead institutions is a key enabler of delivery success.
Evaluation of delivery should be embedded across all project activities using clear logic model and mixed method approaches to ensure data collected accounted for failure. A designated evaluation lead is key.

Foundation years

The government and the OfS have some concerns about foundation years. One of the recently published quality assessments by the OfS referred to a provider not ensuring insufficient academic support for foundation year students once they progressed onto the main programme – support should have continued for these students at higher levels. This article from Wonkhe in October noted that:

To be fair, you would imagine that students that struggled at level 3 for reasons other than ability (and thus would be likely FY candidates) would continue to struggle when in higher education for the same reasons – poverty, lack of social capital, other responsibilities – that they had faced previously.

A foundation year is not the same as a foundation degree. A foundation year is integrated with an undergraduate course, whereas a foundation degree is a standalone qualification. We all get a bit confused about how the regulatory conditions apply: continuation is defined as year 1 to year 2: in this case that means foundation year to year 1 undergraduate. Completion means completion of the undergraduate programme (for foundation year students that means 4 years, without a placement year, 5 with a placement).

You will recall that the government is worried about the cost and value add of foundation years. The House of Commons library research briefing on student number controls from August 2023 describes the upcoming cap on fees for some foundation years from the 2025/26 academic year: we are awaiting a consultation on the detail of this.

International

After the fuss earlier this year about international students allegedly accessing foundation year courses with lower grades than UK students and in the context of the government priorities on reducing migration, the Home Secretary has asked the Migration Advisory Committee to review the post-study work visa.

Although the report is not due until May, and recommendations may not be implemented for the start of the 24/25 academic year, this is likely to have a further chilling effect on international recruitment in September. It is possible though that the government want steps to be taken before the election, the timetable means there will be no time for a call for evidence.

Initial data from the MAC annual report shows that the proportion of international students studying at lower tariff institutions has risen to 32% in 2021/22, while the number of [international] postgraduate students attending institutions with the lowest UCAS tariff quartiles has increased by over 250% between 2018 and 2022.
We are keen to understand the drivers behind this, including whether it is because people are using these courses as a long-term route to work in the UK. An international student can spend relatively little on fees for a one-year course and gain access to two years with no job requirement on the Graduate route, followed by four years access to a discounted salary threshold on the Skilled Worker route. This means international graduates are able to access the UK labour market with salaries significantly below the requirement imposed on the majority of migrant skilled workers. The Government is already taking steps to change the general salary threshold for the Skilled Worker Visa from £26,200 to £38,700, which will increase the requisite salary in order to switch routes, including with the applied discount.
Early data suggests that only 23% of students switching from the Graduate route to the Skilled Worker route in 2023 went into graduate level jobs. In 2023, 32% of international graduates switching into work routes earned a salary above the general threshold at the time (£26,200), with just 16% earning over £30,000 – meaning that the vast majority of those completing the Graduate route go into work earning less than the median wage of other graduates. Initial data shows that the majority of international students switching from the Graduate route into the Skilled Worker route go into care work. This is clearly not what the Government intended in the 2019 Manifesto when it pledged to establish the Graduate route to attract the best and brightest students to study in the UK.

Wonkhe has a piece.

In this context, the QAA has also announced a review of pre-entry courses for international students.

This review will compare the admissions requirements between foundation programmes for domestic students and international students, assess the standards of the courses being offered to international students as both foundation programmes and international year one programmes, and assess whether these standards are being achieved and maintained in practice.
QAA will publish the findings of this review by the end of Spring 2024.

And if you are not sure what these pathways for international students are or how much they are used, the Nous Group have a report out.

In-person delivery at a relevant university campus: this is the most common mode in the UK where many UK universities host a pathway provider building on one of their campuses.
In-person delivery at a pathway provider campus in the destination country: some pathway providers have study centres in the country in which students wish to study that are independent of a university campus.
In-person delivery at a partner university in the source country: foundation programmes offered by destination universities are often delivered via a partnership with an in-market university.
In-person delivery at a study centre partner of a pathway provider in the source country: not all pathway providers deliver education directly. Some partner with study centres across source countries to deliver pathway programmes designed and assessed by the provider.
Online delivery via the pathway provider learning platform: the expansion of providers into online delivery was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Now multiple providers offer fully online foundation courses with guaranteed progression to a partner university on successful completion.

OfS funding review

The OfS has announced a consultation on how they fund the sector – not tuition fee funding but grant funding. It closes on 23^rd June and we will be considering a BU response.

Our current model of recurrent funding for higher education providers is based on assumptions that some activities cost more to deliver than others. This could relate to particular subjects; to supporting particular groups of students to achieve success; or to reflect the operating models of some types of providers. The two primary types of funding the OfS distributes are:

Course-based: This is a high-cost subject funding allocation – for example, for courses in medicine, or physics – and includes targeted allocations to address specific priority areas – for example degree apprenticeships, and skills at Levels 4 and 5. We do not provide funding for courses in subject areas, such as law and humanities, that are classroom-based and that do not need the same level of specialist facilities to teach.
Student-based: This is a funding allocation to recognise additional support needs of students from disadvantaged groups or groups historically less likely to participate in higher education. Student-based funding also includes funding for Uni Connect.

We want to hear views on the effectiveness of the two primary types of funding the OfS distributes: course-based funding and student-based funding.

First three questions by way of illustration

Question 1: What are your views on OfS course-based funding? We are interested in any views, and below are some prompts for respondents to consider:

• Should the distribution of funding continue to primarily reflect the courses and subjects students are studying? Should we also consider additional factors and/or approaches for course-based funding?

• What should we seek to achieve with course-based funding?

• What activity is currently supported in providers by this funding?

• Are there any areas of important provision that are currently not supported by our funding allocations?

• How should our approach adapt in the future?

• What assessment is currently made by providers of the impact of this funding

Question 2: What are your views on OfS student-based funding? We are interested in any views, and below are some prompts for respondents to consider:

• Should the distribution of funding continue to reflect the characteristics of the student population at individual providers? Should we also consider alternative factors and/or characteristics and/or approaches for student-based funding?

• What should we seek to achieve with student-based funding?

• What activity is currently supported in providers by this funding?

• How best can the OfS use this funding to support access, success and progress for students?

• How should it be targeted?

• What assessment is currently made by providers of the impact of this funding

Question 3: What are your views on OfS capital funding? We are interested in any views, and below are some prompts for respondents to consider:

• What assessment is currently made by providers of the impact of this funding?

• How should we strike an appropriate balance between formula funding and competitive bidding to allocate capital funding?

Is this good, normal practice to review this as it was last reviewed in 2012, or deeply worrying? The suggestion that they might use quality data to determine funding is interesting. And there is no new money, it is just the way it is distributed that it is up for discussion.

Wonkhe have a view:

This is a very broad call for evidence – in section A for each of the streams detailed above OfS wants to hear what activity is currently supported, what value is added, and whether what OfS tries to achieve with these allocations is the right thing to be aiming at.
.. And then you get to section B, in which OfS suggests that we scrap HESES…. The new proposal (actually an old idea familiar to anyone who has been involved in this debate historically) is to scrap the December allocation entirely and use two year-old data (so the 2021-22 year end data informs the 2023-24 allocation), thus reducing burden for providers in submission and reconciliation…. My suspicion is that rapid changes in student numbers year-on-year (and, increasingly, in year) will make this idea quite a hard sell strategically. But in terms of practicalities, the crashing failure of Data Futures – it genuinely blows my mind that we still (in March 2024) don’t have official 2022-23 student number data – might mean that people are reluctant to let go of the various checks and balances in the current system.
…OfS has been clear that there are no “proposals” in this document, just a starting point for conversation. It’s just an odd time to start the conversation.
… The other (tuition fee) end of the funding system is set up to use information on teaching quality and equality of opportunity – your TEF grade is meant to determine the extent of an annual inflationary uplift in the higher level fee cap, and access to this higher level is still predicated on the existence of a credible plan on access and participation. Building these factors into the old (largely atrophied) teaching grant end too feels like double counting – though there could be a case to link access to grant funding to a minimum level of teaching quality there would need to be a far more robust and widely supported method of determining this to keep OfS out of court.

Wonkhe have a graph of what everyone gets (BU gets nearly £7m). Nottingham University is the top with £49million. There are all sorts of pots in here though, including capital, special projects, student premium, high cost courses, etc. Nottingham’s was nearly all high cost subject funding, as was ours, although we had a relatively large chunk of student premium money too.

You’ll recall that capital allocations recently switched to competitive bidding from an allocation mechanism.

Apprenticeships

The PM is set to announce new funding for apprenticeships.

Rishi Sunak is promising to create up to 20,000 more apprenticeships with a series of reforms including fully funding training for young people and cutting red tape for small businesses.
The government will pay the full cost of apprenticeships for people aged 21 or under at small firms from 1 April. To enable this, it is pledging £60m of new investment for next year.
…In a speech to a conference for small businesses in Warwickshire, the prime minister will set out a package of reforms he says will “unlock a tidal wave of opportunity”. As well as funding the cost of apprenticeships, ministers will also raise the amount of funding companies who are paying the apprenticeship levy can pass on to other businesses.

The press release gives a bit more detail.

Lifelong learning entitlement

You will recall a deep dive into this in a recent policy update using the DFE’s concept paper. The house of commons library has now issued a briefing paper. It’s a good read, especially if you click through to the full paper, going back over all the history and context. The LLE stuff starts on page 20.

There is a lot more consultation to come

In spring 2024, the Department for Education will launch a technical consultation on the wider expansion of modular funding and lay secondary legislation covering the fee limits for the LLE in Parliament.
In autumn 2024, it will lay the secondary legislation that will set out the rest of the LLE funding system in Parliament.
In spring 2025, the LLE personal account will be launched for learners.
In autumn 2025, the Department for Education will launch the qualification gateway.
The Office for Students (OfS) will consult “in due course” on the development and introduction of a new third registration category for providers offering LLE-funded course and modules.

Free speech

The OfS consultation on free speech complaints panels has now closed and we look forward to the outcomes.

As previously announced, the OfS has confirmed that there will be another consultation before the end of March, on the guidance for the sector and changes to the regulatory guidance.

We expect the proposed guidance to cover two broad areas:
- Examples where a provider, constituent institution or students’ union may not have taken steps to secure free speech; and
- A non-exhaustive list of steps that it may be reasonably practicable for providers, constituent institutions and students’ unions to take to secure free speech within the law. This includes steps relating to the free speech code of practice.

This is a complex area and an 8 week consultation period is fairly tight.

6 March 2024

BU Policy update 2024: no 6, 6th March 2024

innovation, international, Student Engagement jforster

Politics and Parliament

Budget

All the budget papers will be here as they are released.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has a video here with “5 things you need to know about their forecast”
The IfS has a context paper here
The Institute for Government has one too.

BBC stories:

Politics Home has a summary

And what does the budget paper actually say about education and research?

Committing £14 million for public sector research and innovation infrastructure. This includes funding to develop the next generation of health and security technologies, unlocking productivity improvements in the public and private sector alike. (page 36). Otherwise the section on science and innovation on page 55 only refers to things already announced.
Something on life sciences (page 60): £45 million of additional funding for medical charities doing life-saving research

News story from the Treasury on an investment package in life sciences and R&D

Ahead of the Spring Budget this week, the Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has today (Monday 4 March) announced a significant investment package in the UK’s life sciences and manufacturing sectors, as part of the government’s plan to grow the economy, boost health resilience and support jobs across the UK. The funding will go towards several companies and projects who are making cutting edge technology in sectors key to economic growth and part of wider government support to ensure the UK is the best place to start, grow and invest in manufacturing.

Chancellor to announce significant funding package for R&D and manufacturing projects across the life sciences, automotive and aerospace sectors.
£92 million joint government and industry investment to expand facilities to manufacture life-saving medicines and diagnostics products.
£200 million joint investment in zero-carbon aircraft technology to develop a more sustainable aviation sector and almost £73 million in automotive technology.

New apprenticeships: From FE Week. The ministerial statement is here

Thirteen specially selected apprenticeships will receive a £3,000 per-apprentice funding boost from April, the Treasury has announced.
The extra cash will come on top of usual funding bands but training providers will need to deliver a minimum of 15 starts to access it.

There is one level 5 in there: nuclear technician.

And the NHS?

the government will invest £3.4 billion to reform the way the NHS works. …
This investment in NHS technology will be central to a wider NHS productivity plan including workforce productivity improvements set out in the long term workforce plan. ….
£430 million will be invested to transform access and services for patients, giving them more choice and the ability to manage and attend appointments virtually, and enabling £2.5 billion savings over five years. …. These transformations include:
- Making the NHS App the single front door through which patients can access NHS services and manage their care….
- Digitally-enabled prevention and early intervention services, through the NHS App, introducing a new digital health check ….
- Delivering a radically improved online experience for patients, giving citizens a single digital access point for information about NHS services…..
£1 billion will be invested to transform the use of data to reduce time spent on unproductive administrative tasks by NHS staff, enabling more than £3 billion of savings over five years. …. This includes:
- Pilots to test the ability of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to automate back office functions. By automating the writing and clinical coding of notes, discharge summaries and GP letters, clinicians will be able to spend more time with patients at more appointments. ….
- Providing all NHS staff with digital passports and access to a new NHS Staff App. …..
- An acceleration of the Federated Data Platform (FDP) to bring together operational and ICS data currently stored on separate systems to every trust in the country by the end of 2026-27 ….
£2 billion will be invested to update fragmented and outdated IT systems across the NHS….This will also lay the groundwork for cutting-edge technologies such as AI, enabling the NHS to become a world leader in using technology. These steps include:
- Upgrading IT systems, scaling up existing use of AI and ensuring all NHS staff are equipped with modern computing technology.
- Ensuring all NHS Trusts have Electronic Patient Records by March 2026….
- Upgrading over one hundred MRI scanners with AI, enabling scans to be delivered up to 35% more quickly…
- Digitising transfers of care. …
The government and NHS England will convene an external expert advisory panel to ensure that the programme has the support and challenge to deliver its goals, including making the best use of new and emerging technologies.
A step change in the timeliness of data and reporting will also enable the NHS to identify and adapt the best policies for improving productivity more quickly. NHS England will start reporting against new productivity metrics regularly from the second half of 2024-25, at a national, Integrated Card Board (ICB) and Trust level. New incentives will be introduced to reward providers that deliver productivity improvement at a local level, including through effective investment helping to deliver better outcomes. Further detail will be set out in the summer.
Building on the progress already made, the government will work with NHS England to reduce the costs of agency staffing, including ending the use of expensive “off-framework” agency staffing from July 2024, while ensuring that emergency cover can continue.
Alongside this, the NHS will introduce a wider set of measures to review agency price caps, tighten controls and rules around agency staffing, and improve support and transparency. Further details will be set out in the NHS’ Planning Guidance, which will be published shortly.
Maternity safety: The government and NHS England are investing £35 million over three years to improve maternity safety across England, with specialist training for staff, additional midwives and support to ensure maternity services act on women’s experiences to improve care…including:
- We will train an additional 6,000 midwives in neonatal resuscitation and nearly double the number of clinical staff who have received specialist training in obstetric medicine in England.
- Increasing the number of midwives by funding 160 new posts over three years

Britain’s mood, measured weekly

YouGov measure the mood of the country weekly, you can find it here. They also measure government approval.

Politics Home have an updated list of MPs standing down at the next election.

So far, 95 MPs have announced their intention to stand down as MPs at the next general election. At the last general election in 2019, a total of 74 MPs announced that they would not stand again…
Conservative: 59 Conservative MPs and 4 independent MPs (Matt Hancock, Julian Knight, Lisa Cameron. Bob Stewart no longer hold the Tory whip)
Labour: 17 Labour MPs and 2 independent MPs (Nick Brown and Conor McGinn no longer hold the Labour whip)
13 other party MPs (9 SNP, 2 Sinn Féin, 1 Green, 1 Plaid Cymru)

What is perhaps more telling is the fact that many of those stepping back from frontline politics are relatively young, in their 30s and 40s. While the Tory MPs stepping down have an average age of 56 years, Labour MPs stepping down have an average age of 69, mostly made up of veteran MPs retiring from long professional lives in Parliament.

Research and knowledge exchange: war on woke

You will recall the huge fuss in October 2023 about Michelle Donelan’s somewhat intemperate intervention in UKRI governance when she called out members of the Research England Expert Advisory Group on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion for expressing allegedly “extremist views” on social media. The Minister demanded that the group be disbanded and people sacked. UKRI launched an investigation. One of the people implicated, Professor Kate Sang, took legal action against the Minister.

On 5^th March, several things happened:

UKRI reported that the investigation had exonerated all the advisory board members involved and reinstated them to the panel
It is reported that the Minister has paid damages and costs (or rather that the department has on her behalf). Bindmans, the law firm who represented Professor Sang, issued a statement.
The Liberal Democrats demand an inquiry into why the taxpayer is funding the payments.
Michelle Donelan issued a statement on X confirming she has withdrawn her concerns expressed in the tweet.

Poppy Wood, from the I newspaper, has it all set out in a thread on X. Research Professional has a timeline of what happened.

Student experience, wellbeing and finances

Student experience: the Student Futures commission

This report from the UPP Student Futures Foundation includes new polling about student experiences. Some of the splits by demographic are very interesting.

79% of students agreed that their university had given them all the support they needed to prepare for the start of term. The splits here suggest that different support is needed by the “low socio-economic status” students
74% of students were working at or above the academic level they expected to be.
74% of students agreed with the statement “I feel happy at university”, and 63% agreed with the statement “I feel I belong at my university” In the original report, findings highlight that students are more likely to feel a connection with their course (55%) than with their university (39%). This gap has widened: now, 56% of students feel a sense of attachment to their course, and only 17% to their university overall.

Mental health

57% agreed that university had had a positive impact on their mental health overall (though over 1/5th (22%) of students felt it had had a negative impact overall).
Over a quarter (27%) of students would be uncomfortable contacting their university for support if they were struggling with their mental health.
60% of students were confident that if they contact their university for support when they were struggling with their mental health, that the university would be able to help them.

Teaching and learning: while 57% report having fully in person learning, only 42% think that is ideal. Most of the rest want a mix: fully or mostly online are not the popular choices.

Social and engagement:

44% of students were less engaged with extracurricular activities than they were expecting to be, and a quarter (25%) had never engaged at all.
50% of students had not had any specific conversations or guidance about future careers with staff at their university;
72% felt there was more their university could do to integrate workplace skills into the curriculum

Disabled students

The update a few weeks ago talked about getting to know our students. Here we have a focus on some of the challenges and outcomes for students with disabilities. Wonkhe’s take on the UPP report discussed above is here: Disabled students need more than support plans and “fixing” | Wonkhe: looking at the polling behind the report in more detail highlights the challenges with belonging that some groups experience, focusing on disability in particular as the largest group

Shaw Trust launched a report, ‘The disability employment gap for graduates’. It’s an interesting read.

And the challenges are real: AGCAS launched the ‘What happens next in challenging times?’ report, analysing 2020 and 2021 Graduate Outcomes data for disabled graduates:

The total employment of disabled graduates at all levels of qualification was lower than the total employment of graduates with no known disability in both 2019/20 and 2020/21.
In both years, for first degree and postgraduate taught, autistic graduates reported the lowest proportion of highly skilled employment, followed by graduates with mental health conditions
In 2019/20 and 2020/21, the majority of first degree disabled graduates were more likely than graduates with no known disability to work in roles that did not require their qualification.

The recommendations are:

• Maintain focus on the total employment gap for disabled graduates, to ensure that positive progress in outcomes for the wider graduate population does not obscure continued inequality of employment opportunities and outcomes for disabled graduates. Within data on disabled graduate outcomes, further breakdown by disability type is needed to highlight variance amongst the outcomes of disabled graduates.

• Higher education institutions and employers should adopt the relevant recommendations in the 2023 Disabled Student Commitment. All stakeholders should consider how to effectively support and resource appropriate higher education careers and employability activity, to work towards reducing, and ultimately eliminating, the total employment gap for disabled graduates.

• All bodies collecting quantitative data on graduate outcomes should look to ensure parity of data between disabled graduates and graduates with no known disability, as well as providing a breakdown of data by disability type to highlight variance amongst the outcomes of disabled graduates. Alongside this, there is a need for more qualitative data on disability disclosure during and after higher education participation.

• Further research and data on the experiences and outcomes of autistic graduates are urgently needed. A collaborative approach from sector bodies, higher education institutions and employers is vital, and all work must centre the voices of autistic students and graduates.

• Higher education institutions should review their long-term employability support for recent graduates to help mitigate any additional barriers to successful graduate transition and prioritise support for disabled graduates to prevent the compounding of existing inequalities of outcome.

Wonkhe have a blog from the authors: There is still an unacceptable gap in employment outcomes for disabled graduates | Wonkhe:

The pipeline is not so much leaky as blocked, to the detriment of our society. The barriers that disabled graduates, and the wider disabled population, experience in seeking, securing and maintaining good work are significant, varied and complex. Disabled people are often actively excluded from employment, directly or indirectly, as illustrated by the overall disability employment gap.
It is also worth remembering that our new research projects only focus on accessing work. Once in work, disabled people continue to experience inequality, with the disability pay gap currently standing at 13.8 per cent. There is a long way to go here.

Loan forgiveness for nursing students

As covered in the last update, there is a challenge with recruitment to nursing courses.

MillionPlus and the Royal College of Nursing have written to the Chancellor ahead of the budget

To fulfil the ambitious goals outlined in the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan, the annual intake of nursing students needs to average 29,000 between 2023 and 2031, solely to meet the NHS’s staffing requirements. Universities, and in particular modern universities who train around 70% of new nurses, stand ready to meet this challenge. However, the current pipeline, represented by the 2023/24 nursing student cohort, stands at only 22,470, highlighting a significant shortfall. To further complicate matters, current recruitment efforts primarily rely on overseas professionals, posing long-term sustainability challenges for the NHS. Further compounding this critical situation, university admission figures reveal a worrying 26% decline in nursing applications over the past two years, making a bad situation worse.
The burden of student debt coupled with real terms cuts in maintenance grants for nursing students act as significant disincentives for talented individuals to pursue this vital career path. These financial pressures are part of a vicious cycle of understaffing, ultimately jeopardising the quality of care delivered by our NHS.
To address this critical challenge, we urge you to seize the opportunity presented by the Spring Budget and invest in a loan forgiveness model for nursing graduates working in public services

Research Professional have the story.

And it seems there is public support for this: A YouGov poll: MillionPlus has a blog:

MillionPlus, the Association for Modern Universities, has today commented (5 March) on polling by YouGov which shows overwhelming public backing for a fee loan forgiveness scheme for nurses.
In total, three quarters (76%) of the public backed the measure in polling conducted by YouGov ahead of Wednesday’s budget. Support for the policy was shown by all age groups, with those 65+ most in favour (78%). The scheme received majority support from the voters of all three main parties (Con, 73%, Lab, 89%, Lib Dem, 79%).

International: Falling international recruitment

Government data published on 29^th February includes numbers of sponsored study visas.

These students are expected to leave the UK: Analysis from the Migrant journey: 2022 reportshows that most foreign students do not remain in the UK indefinitely. Around 4 in 5 of those arriving on study routes had expired leave 5 years later. Since 2007, fewer than 10% of people who came to study in the UK had indefinite leave to remain 10 years later (compared to over 20% who came for work and over 80% for family reasons). The recent introduction of the Graduate route and other factors may change the proportion of students who stay on in the UK, which will be monitored in due course through the annual migrant journey reports.

This Wonkhe blog predicts this decline will continue: the change of rules on dependants will be part of it, but so also is cost of living for all these students, especially dramatically for Nigeran applicants given the changes in the value of the Nigerian currency which have made the UK a very expensive place to be.

And this one makes very worrying reading in terms of the impact of all this.: Will international recruitment fall even further? | Wonkhe.

HE sector sustainability and change

Outreach work

For a long time the sector has been pushed to do more with schools, not to support recruitment but to improve attainment for students in those schools. At one point there was a suggestion that all universities should be required to sponsor schools. A policy update from November 2017 has this:

At the UUK Access and Student Success summit on Tuesday a Government representative made clear that broader (and effective) forms of partnership working are welcome but that they expect more universities to be involved in a school sponsorship style model.
Background: In December 2016 the Government made clear that they expected universities to be more interventionist proposing that all universities sponsor or set up a school in exchange for charging higher HE tuition fees. The Schools that work for everyone consultation garnered responses to the Government’s aim to harness universities’ expertise and resources to drive up attainment through direct involvement. When the snap election was announced the school sponsorship agenda featured in the Conservative’s manifesto. However, recently there has been little additional push from Government.
Working quietly in the wings throughout this period, OFFA have been urging institutions to make progress against a more diluted version of the Government’s aim – that universities take measures to support school pupils’ attainment and increase school collaboration through the Fair Access Agreements

The analysis of responses to the consultation showed that the sector did not universally welcome this approach:

The consultation received a wide range of suggestions for how universities can best support school level attainment. This included support for students, support for teachers and support for schools in primary, secondary and further education. However, while the idea of school support was broadly welcomed, not all agreed that traditional, formal, academy sponsorship arrangements should be prioritised over other forms of school engagement.…
In addition to the specific questions asked in the consultation, some respondents raised concerns about higher education institutions being required to sponsor schools and support attainment in schools. These included some uncertainty about the extent to which universities’ sponsorship will guarantee improvements in attainment, caution about the impact the policy would have on other methods of engagement, and opposition to tuition fees in general. …
… the consultation received over 2,600 suggestions for how academic expertise at universities could help improve school-level attainment. Suggestions could be categorised into three broad areas: support for pupils; support for schools; and support for teachers. These respondents said that universities had a role to play in supporting primary, secondary and further education, and often cited multiple types of support suggesting that it is important that universities make a contribution across a number of different fronts simultaneously. However, higher education institutions and their representative bodies were opposed to a prescriptive approach – for example school sponsorship – due to concerns that this would limit the number of schools that are supported, and the number of pupils reached, compared to the diverse approaches currently taken.

The outcome from the consultation from 2016 referred to above was published in 2018. On this question it concluded: The Government endorses this guidance [from the Office for Students, about Access and Participation plans] and expects more universities to come forward to be involved in school sponsorship and establishing free schools, although support need not be limited to those means. What is important is that institutions can clearly demonstrate the impact their support is having on schools and pupils.

Since then the guidance on access and participation has changed several times as has the Director for Fair Access. In this Insight Brief from April 2022 we were told:

The government has signalled that it expects ‘to see the whole higher education sector stepping up and taking a greater role in continuing to raise aspirations and standards in education’. Money spent by universities on access and participation should be ‘used effectively and in line with evidence to deliver real social mobility’…
In the next phase of the Uni Connect programme, we are expecting partnerships to develop evidence-informed collaborative approaches to raise attainment in local state secondary schools, acting as a broker, drawing on the resources and input of local higher education providers. We expect them to continue to engage schools and colleges to deliver higher education outreach with the aim of supporting young people to make informed choices about their options in relation to the full range of routes into and through higher education, including through apprenticeships.

So now we hear from Public First, commissioned by the OfS to review UniConnect. The report is here.

• There is a strong underlying case for some form of centrally funded programme to encourage and deliver high quality collaborative outreach.

o Collaborative outreach has been a feature of the system in England for more than two decades. Uni Connect is the latest of five (or depending on how we count it, six) centrally funded collaborative outreach programmes in that time.

o The literature review conducted as part of this review reveals a strong case in principle for collaborative outreach over and above action which might be taken by individual HEIs.

§ Because HEIs have incentive to focus outreach activity on recruiting students to their own institution, especially students who are statistically more likely to attend and perform well throughout and beyond their courses. This would damage equality of opportunity for students that are currently underrepresented.

§ Because regulatory requirements to address this risk through Access and Participation Plans are still likely to incentivise individual action by universities, and thus lead to inefficacy, duplication of effort and gaps in outreach for some places and groups of students.

§ Because such collective action is likely to require additional funding since it is unlikely to be offered voluntarily at scale.

• At their best, collaborative outreach programmes can be transformative for individuals and provide the ‘connective tissue’ that strengthens higher education access within regions and nationally.

• Uni Connect could be more consistently effective and impactful.

o National gaps in access to higher education between the most and least advantaged students have not narrowed during the lifetime of Uni Connect – and there is little evidence at a macro level of a reduction in the participation gap between Uni Connect target areas and the rest of the country

• There is evidence of several reasons for Uni Connect not consistently delivering to its potential.

Research Professional have the story.

The reports find that “for many in higher education, and in Uni Connect partnerships themselves, the new focus on attainment-raising represents a further dilution of Uni Connect’s mission and an expansion into work that sits outside partnerships’ core competencies”.
For schools, this new direction “has been a poorly explained (and even outright unwelcome) incursion into work they view as their own core competency”, the consultancy adds.
John Blake, director of fair access and participation at the OfS, said: “As you can imagine, that was pretty hard reading for me, but I’ve spent two years telling people that you can’t just have the evidence you like—you have to pay attention to the evidence you don’t,” he said.
Blake added that he wasn’t about to “surrender my belief that what happens in earlier phases of education makes a difference to higher education, because that seems to be unarguable”. However, he did say that today’s reports had given him pause for thought about the best approach to that issue.

So maybe there will be a change in approach?

Franchising investigation

I explained last week the background to the public accounts committee investigation into franchised provision and specifically into student loan fraud linked to franchisees. I listened to some of the oral hearing session with the OfS and others and the transcript is here. I’ve set out quite a lot because it is interesting, not specifically in relation to the particular fraud problem at the relevant institutions, but because of the perspective on the system and the sector as a whole. Fascinating.

The committee started with an explanation of how student loan finance works and a focus on how much it costs the student (this set the tone for some of what came later): the Chair asked: “What assessment have you made of the affordability of student loan debt—for example, in the context of the cost of living or the affordability of housing –when setting repayment terms such as the interest rates and the length of loans? This is a huge burden that we are saddling youngsters with. I know from one of my employees that it makes a huge difference, when you are applying for a mortgage later on in life, if you are still saddled with this huge debt.” Then there was a long discussion about defining the question, which was really what the actual debt is (i.e. over the lifetime of the loan with interest) and what is repaid and Susan Acland-Hood of the DfE had to agree to provide the data separately.

Then they went straight in with “what assurance can you give us that you are taking the fraud and abuse of student funding seriously?”. The answer from Susan Acland-Hood was that the DfE are doing a lot, of course, but for this purpose the definition of “abuse” given was broad.

There are three risks that are different but related to each other.
- There is an individual fraud risk, where somebody is trying to defraud the taxpayer of money that could be paid out in, typically, student maintenance payments—individuals who claim to be studying when they are not or who are trying to defraud the system.
- You then have a related set of risks around something that is a bit more like misuse or mis-selling—people trying to persuade students, who themselves are more genuine than the fraudulent ones at this end, that they should engage in higher education, but where the principal aim is about gathering tuition fee payments. There may be less curiosity and interest, to put it mildly, from providers in whether what they are delivering is of really good quality.
- Then you have a set of concerns around poor quality provision, which might not be from any bad intent, but is not serving students as well as it should be.

There was a long discussion about failures of the OfS. DfE and the SLC to talk to each other about the actual fraud case that is discussed in the NAO report on the fraud. They all said that they are now sharing information more effectively. The OfS spoke about the work they have done to impose additional reporting requirements on some providers and the formal investigation that was published last week.

The Chair asked another straightforward question “Why are the course outcomes poorer for those franchised higher education providers?”. The OfS explained the B3 licence conditions on student outcomes and how they are benchmarked according to student demographics and the subjects that they are studying.

And, as we know:

We have been escalating our casework on those student outcomes cases over the past year. That work has covered some of these providers, but, as colleagues have said, for the next cycle, we are going to prioritise looking at the outcomes for students who are studying through those franchised arrangements, to make sure that we are having a really good look at what is happening for them and at the detail of the outcomes in particular partnerships for particular providers.

There was a conversation about guidelines for the use of agents and financial incentives. Susan Acland-Hood confirmed:

We have been talking to the sector about agents. Universities UK has worked to introduce the UK agent quality framework, which is designed to make sure that agents are being well used in the system. Agents have a positive role to play but need to be operating responsibly and acting in a way that is genuinely in students’ interests. On the back of more recent reports, we have also started a rapid investigation into the use of agents, both domestically and internationally, in order to protect students’ interests. Alongside that, Universities UK has committed to reviewing the agent quality framework and updating the admissions code of practice to make clear how that applies, particularly to students studying foundation degrees, which is one of the focuses of recent attention. There have also been commitments from others in the sector that they will make sure that they abide by the updated agent quality framework when it is produced

And Susan Lapworth for the OfS said:

We have seen, for instance, weaknesses in the internal control environment for the lead providers, suggesting that they do not have the grip that we would expect over the recruitment activity of those delivery partners, including where agents are used. We have monitored the actions that those lead providers are taking to resolve those internal control issues. More broadly, we are always clear for these sorts of providers, as well as for all providers that we regulate, that they are subject to consumer protection law. …More recently, we have entered into a partnership with National Trading Standards, which is able to enforce consumer law. We are referring cases to them to show that we are serious when we say that compliance is not optional in this sector.

There was a discussion about the financial sustainability of the sector.

Then a really interesting point about the funding arrangements for franchise provision:

Chair: …When I and other members of the Committee read this, it made our blood absolutely boil. It is the bit that clearly you know only too well. It is about the amount of deductions that can take place when lead providers have franchise arrangements. You pay the student loan to the lead provider, but the lead provider, as the report says, can deduct between 12.5% and 30%. 30% can be deducted. The poor student who is taking out the loan does not even know anything about it. That is completely unacceptable, is it not? Even the worst credit cards only take 19%. That is completely unacceptable. They do not know the deduction even exists.
Susan Acland-Hood: Just to be clear, that is a deduction from the tuition fee amount, not from maintenance or other loans that would otherwise go into the student’s pocket. In a sense, it represents the value that the lead provider should be adding in making sure that the provision is of good quality. I would agree with you. Amounts at the upper end of that are interesting.
Chair: It is not interesting. I would put it to you that it is unacceptable. It is particularly unacceptable that the student is not being made aware of this. If I take out a mortgage, my financial provider has to provide every piece of information under the sun, including how much the introductory agent is being paid and how much that is worth over the term of the mortgage. Why are we not having more transparency in this area of student loans?
…Julia Kinniburgh from the DFE: At the moment, it is for the lead provider to think about the arrangement that they want to have with their franchisee, but it is questionable for that not to be transparent and open. That is one of the things where we want to think about whether we should take further action in that space
Chair: I put it to you that it is not questionable; it is egregious and it is wrong. I wonder what you can do to put it right.
…. Susan Lapworth: Yes, some of these figures have become visible to us as we have done the work that we talked about earlier. I agree that some of those numbers are quite shocking. Interestingly, there is also quite a range. Some are less shocking than others. Like DfE colleagues, we are concerned about what this might be telling us about the amount of that tuition fee payment, the £9,250 a year, that is being spent on making sure the courses are high quality as they are delivered to students. Those are the sharp questions that we have been posing for vice-chancellors. If the lead provider is taking that kind of percentage from the fee and the delivery provider is generating a profit or surplus from the enterprise, that squeezes down the amount of money that is being spent on students. That is of concern to us. ….
Chair: I hear all of that. Ms Acland-Hood, should this information be in the public domain so that every student applying for every course in the country can see what these deductions are? Sunlight is the best form of disinfectant; so is transparency. There is too much secrecy involved here. Why can we not make these arrangements fully transparent?
Susan Acland-Hood: As you are hearing, a lot of us think that would be a very sensible thing to do. It is under discussion with Ministers now.

Then there was a discussion about how to improve controls, mandatory registration of franchise providers etc.

A question was asked about providers who had been refused registration then becoming franchise providers: Susan Lapworth said that 20 providers have been refused registration and she was aware of 2 that had become franchise providers.

There was a discussion about monitoring attendance and engagement.

There is some published written evidence. The UUK evidence refers to this last point about attendance and engagement:

We recommend that in following the NAO’s suggestion, if the Department for Education (DfE) is to develop further guidance on what constitutes meaningful engagement, that the DfE first consult with the sector to understand where there might be gaps in current approaches and where further guidance is necessary. We also recommend consideration is given to whether the OfS should lead this process, and how the regulator and government can work together with the sector on this issue to avoid the complexity of similar yet distinct expectations being created.

26 February 2024

HE policy update 5: 26th February 2024

Industry collaboration, innovation, international, Knowledge Exchange, NHS, Student Engagement jforster

An interesting mixture of news: a look around through the eyes of the House of Lords library and a lengthy analysis of the differences between the 4 nations, a hopeful look forward through the UUK manifesto for the election, Research England are taking steps on spin-outs and there are serious concerns about abuse of franchised provision arrangements in some parts of the sector. I also look at the latest developments in two sad cases of student deaths and what the might mean for the sector going forwards. A look at Scottish and Welsh funding for HE just makes everyone scratch their heads more about how to make the numbers add up.

Politics and Parliament

Here’s something cheerful in the context of all the criticism of the sector: a House of Lords library briefing on the sector’s contribution to the economy and levelling up. This has come out because there is a motion in the House of Lords in early March: Lord Blunkett (Labour) to move that this House takes note of the contribution of higher education to national growth, productivity and levelling up.

As we were reminded by all this week’s chaos and anger about the Gaza motion and its various amendments, these “motions” have no actual force: they don’t directly lead to any action or decision, they are usually very party political in nature and it is not unusual for one party or another to decline to vote on them at all so that while they may be passed there is even less meaning to be taken from them.

That is not to say that they don’t have some impact: the debate itself can influence perceptions in the longer term and the briefings are always interesting. A reminder that briefings from the libraries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords are not party political: they are intended to be factual and to be used by all potential participants in the debate. As such they provide a useful summary of the current state of affairs.

So to this one:

Citing a London Economics report for UUK in August 2023: Its analysis estimated that the ‘economic footprint’ of HE providers across the UK resulted in:

768,000 full-time jobs
£71bn in terms of gross value added (GVA)
£116bn in terms of general economic output

And goes on to quote from the report: In addition to the large impact within the government, health, and education sector itself (£52.8bn of economic output), the activities of UK HE providers are estimated to generate particularly large impacts within the distribution, transport, hotels, and restaurants sector (£15.4bn), the production sector (£12.6bn), the real estate sector (£9.7bn), and the professional and support activities sector (£9.2bn).

Using a separate London Economics Report with HEPI and Kaplan International Pathways from May 2023 it also refers to findings about the contribution of international students: The average impact was highest for parliamentary constituencies in London (with an average net impact of £131mn per constituency, equivalent to £1,040 per resident). The average impact per parliamentary constituency in the North East and Scotland was estimated at £640 and £750 respectively per member of the resident population; between £500 and £510 per member of the resident population in the East and West Midlands, Northern Ireland, and Yorkshire and the Humber; and between £360 and £390 in the North West, South East, South West, the East of England, and Wales

There is a load of data about participation, and then this on outcomes, using the government’s graduate labour market statistics from June 2023

Looking at the labour market as a whole (therefore not just 2020/21 graduates), the government has identified better employment outcomes for graduates than non-graduates:[28]
In 2022, the employment rate for working-age graduates (those aged 16–64) was 87.3%, an increase of 0.6 percentage points on 2021 (86.6%). For working-age postgraduates, the employment rate was 89.3%, an increase of 1.1 percentage points on 2021 (88.2%). For working-age non-graduates, the employment rate was 69.6%, a decrease of 0.2 percentage points from 2021 (69.8%).
In 2022, 66.3% of working-age graduates were in high-skilled employment, compared to 78.3% of postgraduates and 23.6% of non-graduates.
In 2022, the median nominal salary for working-age graduates was £38,500. This was £11,500 more than working-age non-graduates (£27,000), but £6,500 less than working-age postgraduates (£45,000).

The paper goes on to talk about government policy, including its levelling up strategy, but also its policy statement from July 2023 which was the final response to the Augar review from 2019. You’ll remember this one, it talked about promoting level 4 and 5 courses, applying student numbers controls to provision with “poor outcomes”, and proposed fee caps and loan limits for foundation years. [You will also recall that this confirmed they would not go ahead with the minimum entry requirements that had been proposed].

In the context of international students, the paper notes the concerns about immigration and the recent changes to visa rules to prevent most students bringing their families to the UK. Following some exciting stories in the press about entry standards (which were covered in the last update), the paper notes the recent announcement by UUK that they will review admissions practices for international students.

UUK has recently announced a review of admissions practices for international students following concerns that institutions were lowering admission standards to bolster recruitment and fees. This will include reviews of:

foundation programmes for international and domestic students
the agent quality framework, which provides tools and best practice guidance for when universities use agents to help recruit international students
the admissions code of practice, which sets out expectations for university processes

There’s an analysis of responses to the levelling up approach including a reference to a report by Lord Willetts from October 2023 which set out four groups of benefits that higher education can offer individuals and society.

It should be an interesting debate, and a useful reminder of the value of higher education. Just don’t expect any policy changes as a result.

Universities UK manifesto

The UUK manifesto sets out a wish list for the sector. It all looks very expensive and so while ambitious, unlikely to be replicated in anyone’s actual manifesto. We can expect to see more of these over the next few months. Research Professional have the story here.

Future of apprenticeships:

An article in the FT by Alison Wolf calls for the percentage of the apprenticeship levy to be reduced, for it to be extended to smaller businesses and for limits what it can be used for.

Regional inequalities

In the meantime, the Education Policy Institute, along with a range of partners, have published a report Comparing policies, participation and inequalities across UK post-16 education and training landscapes. This is an interim report and compares contexts, choices and outcomes across the 4 nations. It’s a weighty piece and mostly about 16-18 education, but some highlights relevant to HE include:

The level of policy churn experienced within UK E&T is enormous and potentially damaging for all the individuals and institutions involved. Constant policy churn emphasises the view that the E&T system is at best flawed and at worst failing. This has the potential to harm the morale of staff and stakeholders involved in the system as well as negatively shaping the aspirations of young people and their families and their perceptions of different E&T pathways. ….[they may be talking about FE mostly here but this applies to HE too, and the impact of this washes through to post-18 education]
When we were able to look at socio-economic inequalities in access and outcomes, we observed gaping differences in educational outcomes from choices. Those from more disadvantaged backgrounds were less likely to achieve A level or equivalent qualifications, and less likely to achieve degree-level qualifications. As a result, they are then less likely to be in employment, will have lower earnings and less likely to be in professional occupations when they do enter the labour market. These inequalities are of similar size across all four nations, with just slightly higher university attendance amongst the most disadvantaged students in England.
Outcomes are particularly concerning in Wales, including “Welsh boys having the lowest levels of higher education participation”

Recommendations are mostly about schools and FE not HE, but we would agree with this:

A new stable settlement is needed. In the short run, a new vision and policy approach for post-16 E&T may be needed. This will require political consensus within each nation on goals and ambitions that can be realised, well-funded institutions and structures, and a stable set of qualifications

In the section about funding it notes the divide between FE and HE (from p24):

Historically, the four nations have maintained a divided system that rests on a categorical distinction between academic and vocational knowledge and skills. This is rooted in entrenched class division and a perception of HE as a gateway to privilege, contributing to an esteem deficit for FE and negatively influencing young people’s choices (and their families’ perceptions of the sector) when considering available pathways to a good future. Arguably this restricts access and progression and emphasises differentiation and social selection at the expense of social inclusion and the needs of individual learners. …
However, the relationship between FE and HE has become increasingly blurred over the last decade. Universities have been increasingly encroaching on FE spaces through a variety of sub-degree level provision, including, but not limited to, foundation degrees while degree level qualifications are offered by some FE colleges, with degree apprenticeships sitting in a hybrid vocational-academic space….
As each attempts to operate in the others’ space, competitive behaviours are increased and colonisation, rather than quality or diversity of provision, becomes the de facto driver. ….

Research and knowledge exchange: Spinouts

You will recall that the government published alongside the Autumn Statement its response to the Independent Review of University Spin-out Companies. The government said that it accepted all the recommendations of the review and would implement them all. These were:

Government will work with universities to improve deal terms, data and transparency in the sector. This includes reporting on which universities have implemented the policies recommended by the review, creating a database of spin-out companies and supporting the sector to develop a full set of deal terms guidance for different sectors, including template term sheets….
We are providing £20 million for a new cross-disciplinary proof-of-concept research programme. Research England will review the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) to ensure commercialisation functions in universities are appropriately funded and incentivised. We will set up a pilot of shared technology transfer functions for universities….
Government will map and publish support services available to founders and develop proposals to fill gaps or improve support. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) will ensure that all PhD students it funds have the option to attend high quality entrepreneurship training and increased opportunities to undertake internships in local spin-outs, venture capital firms or technology transfer offices. ….
Government will continue its work to support access to finance through the Long-term Investment for Technology and Science (LIFTS) scheme, establishing a new Growth Fund within the British Business Bank, delivering a new generation of British Business Bank Nations and Regions Investment Funds and extending British Patient Capital to 2033-34 with £3 billion of funding. The government will also continue to deliver the Mansion House reforms, including improvements to our capital markets. …
To support our ambition to make the UK’s Research, Development and Innovation landscape more open and navigable, the government will work with UKRI and the National Academies to develop opportunities to improve their fellowship offer for commercialisation, including the option of ‘academic returner’ fellows. ….

Research England have now set out how they are going to do all this. There is a blog here.

They want universities to let them know if they have adopted the best practice policies ahead of a stock take at the end of 2024. The set of best practice policies will be published later in the Spring. They don’t think this is relevant to very many providers.
HESA is going to consult in April 2023 on collecting additional data
Reviewing HEIF: not doing anything now as they have enough data for review, approach will be published in the Spring
Pilot of technology transfer arrangements: more to come in the Spring

And this: Our Connecting Capability Fund (CCF)-RED programme is our main approach to developing university commercialisation capability, through collaboration. We are shortly to publish our priority commercialisation themes for CCF-RED including a first opportunity to bid

Education: Subcontracted provision

In late January there was a National Audit Office report that triggered press interest into allegedly fraudulent outsourced providers of HE. It doesn’t name providers. As a result there is a hearing at the Public Accounts Committee on 26^th Feb. More here from Wonkhe.

We already knew that subcontracted provision is one of the OfS priorities for quality assurance reviews this year but those quality assurance reviews are not usually announced in advance and we don’t believe that they have been kicked off for this year yet.

This week the OfS have announced a formal investigation into one university in relation to its subcontracted provision, looking at whether:

the courses delivered by sub contractual partners are high quality
the lead provider has effective management and governance in place for sub contractual partners
the lead provider has complied with the requirements relating to provision of information to the OfS

A Wonkhe article on the formal investigation: 22^nd Feb 24 highlights the large proportion of subcontracted students at this provider.

Context from the NAO report:

Universities ….may create partnerships, also known as franchises, with other institutions to provide courses on their behalf. The … lead provider.. registers those students studying at their franchise partners, which allows them to apply for funding administered by the Student Loans Company (SLC).
Students may apply for loans covering tuition fees … and maintenance support …. Students normally repay these loans, including accrued interest, once they have finished studying and are earning above a certain amount. These loans represent a long-term liability to taxpayers if not repaid. …. during the 2022/23 academic year SLC made £1.2 billion of loans for tuition fees and maintenance for these [franchised] students.
Lead providers must be registered with the …OfS…, for their franchised provider’s students to be eligible for student funding. Franchised providers do not need to register. Lead providers retain responsibility for protecting all students’ interests, including teaching quality at franchised providers. They also confirm to SLC that students at their franchised providers are, and remain, eligible for student funding….

Summary findings:

…The number of students enrolled at franchised providers more than doubled from 50,440 in 2018/19 to 108,600 in 2021/22. Much of this expansion has been in a relatively small number of providers, with eight of the 114 lead providers responsible for 91% of the growth. Despite this increase, in 2021/22 those studying at franchised providers represented a small proportion, 4.7%, of the total student population…

….Government intended the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (HERA) to encourage providers to join the sector and improve innovation, diversity and productivity. DfE considers that franchising helps widen access to higher education. In 2021/22, 57,470 out of 97,000 (59%) students from England studying at franchised providers were from neighbourhoods classed as high deprivation, compared with 40% of students at all providers…
…As a lead provider retains responsibility for a franchised provider’s compliance with these standards for their students, there is no statutory or regulatory obligation on franchised providers to register with OfS. In 2021/22, 229 (65%) of the 355 franchised providers were not registered…
…Lead providers share fees with their franchised providers, the amount varying according to their contractual arrangements. OfS does not have detailed knowledge of these arrangements but, where it has, told us that some lead providers retained between 12.5% and 30% of tuition fee payments…
…We have seen that some providers use agents or offer financial incentives to recruit students, activities which government does not prohibit or regulate. Government does not know how many providers use these practices, but those we have seen are used by franchised providers. One scheme offered students rewards for referring other people to the provider, with no limit on the number of referrals. There are no regulations to prohibit or regulate these practices, which may present risks to taxpayers’ and students’ interests. Students who sign up in response to incentives may be vulnerable to mis-sold loans, while also being potentially less likely to make repayments…

…Over the past five years trend data show that, at franchised providers, detected fraud cases have increased faster than the proportion of SLC-funded students. In 2022/23, 53% of the £4.1 million fraud detected by SLC by value was at franchised providers…

…Routine analysis by SLC detected suspicious patterns of activity involving franchised provider students across four lead providers. Further investigation by SLC raised concerns across a total of 10 lead providers. Following a request from SLC, DfE instructed SLC to suspend payment of tuition fees while cases under suspicion were investigated. This led to SLC identifying and challenging 3,563 suspicious applications associated with £59.8 million of student funding, with 25% of this money still withheld as at January 2023…
…In May 2022 a lead provider disclosed to OfS, as required by its registration conditions, that it suspected widespread academic misconduct at one of its franchised providers and was undertaking investigations. Following investigation the lead provider withdrew the majority of the then 1,389 students enrolled at the franchised provider. SLC has recovered £6.1 million in respect of the tuition funding provided to withdrawn students. OfS has clawed back £172,600 of its grant funding paid to the provider in respect of these students. To date, DfE and OfS have not imposed other sanctions on providers…
…There is insufficient evidence that students are attending and engaging with their courses. In determining a student’s eligibility for loan payments, and before making payments, SLC uses lead providers’ data to confirm students’ attendance. Lead providers self-assure their own data, also having responsibility for the accuracy of their franchised providers’ information. There is no effective standard against which to measure student engagement, which attendance helps demonstrate, and there is no legal or generally accepted definition of attendance…
…Given SLC’s concerns about potentially fraudulent student loan claims, OfS required several lead providers to commission independent audits of their franchised provider controls and data submissions. This identified controls weaknesses. In October 2023, OfS announced that, for the first time, it would consider whether registered providers had franchise arrangements when deciding where to focus its work assessing student outcomes…
… DfE is consulting stakeholders on potential changes to how providers are regulated. SLC has undertaken a ‘lessons learned’ exercise which proposed recommendations that need to be taken forward by other bodies, including OfS and DfE. …. DfE told us there had been discussions on potential policy options with representative bodies and universities with a large proportion of franchised provision…

There are some interesting articles from the last year here:

A Wonkhe article from June 2023 that chillingly refers to “legal threats aimed at silencing the discussion”
A Wonkhe article on what better regulation might look like: June 2023
Wonkhe on the OfS priorities for quality reviews: October 23
Wonkhe piece on the NAO report: Jan 2024
A comment piece on Wonkhe on law regulation: January 2024

A HEPI paper from this week suggested some ways forward, describing what one provider (Buckinghamshire New University) already does and concluding: “We believe the solution is a strong sector-wide and sector-owned code of practice that requires higher education institutions to work together in the wider interests of students and stakeholders, including government and regulators. This would see higher education institutions establish effective consortia for each franchisee, simplifying and coordinating the multiple demands they place on franchisees, and strengthening the requirements to enhance quality and promote stability”.

Duty of care

There has been a long running campaign by bereaved parents, politicians and others to impose a “duty of care” on universities in relation to students with mental health issues, sometimes described as similar to universities being “in loco parentis” for students. The stories are always terribly sad and this is a difficult area, especially as students are adults and sometimes do not want to engage with university services or staff on these issues, and sometimes don’t want to involve their parents either. A little bit of clarity is emerging as a result of two recent cases. There is no legal duty of care (whatever that means) yet, but there is discussion about a responsibility on staff to “notice” and also about a duty to ensure that process and procedures don’t get in the way of reasonable adjustments.

This debate will continue: the government is pushing all universities to sign up to the University Mental Health Charter (BU has) and the OfS is also undertaking work on this. The government have a taskforce led by Professor Edward Peck, and I reported on their first stage report in the last policy update: you can find that report here and the policy update from 5^th Feb here. It is a complex area but one where there will certainly be a lot more changes in approach to come: including potentially OfS licence conditions in the future.

I noted last time the recent coroner’s report into a student death at the University of Southampton. This Wonkhe article from January covers the story.

Like so many students [Matthew Wickes] was diagnosed after he began on his course, and did not disclose his condition to the university – and so formal codified reasonable adjustments were not able to be put in place.
… But despite the lack of disclosure, [the Coroner] does raise concerns about the “level of awareness, understanding and curiosity” of academic staff around the mental health of students – particularly in the post-pandemic climate – where “interruptions to their study and dysregulated student life have had a significant impact on their mental health”. The message seems to be – it was likely that there would be significant, long lasting mental health impacts from Covid and its lockdowns, which ought to have generated a strategic response in terms of staff capacity to recognise them.
… There is a thread in this and similar cases that is about capacity to “notice”. [The Coroner] noted the university’s processes for “raising a concern” by academic staff through student hubs, and the university talked in the inquest about a new “early warning system” involving triggers around academic absence or changes in study or support behaviours. But [the Coroner]’s worry was more basic: I am concerned that in not ensuring that academic staff are at least armed with the ability to spot or to know when to make initial enquiries of students or are clearly guided on how best to do so (particularly with regard to an understanding of the needs and skills required to liaise with students with neurodiversity), there is a risk that an over-focus on academic policies and procedures will endure and that those students who are struggling to adhere to them will be missed or overlooked.
For example, during the inquest the university had said that all staff were offered training on mental health management and provided with guidance on how to support students. But [the Coroner] said: I am concerned that aspects of this are not made compulsory for academic staff … It remains unclear as to who or how many staff have actually viewed or undertaken the online training around student mental health.
…But while the coroner isn’t saying that all staff or all personal tutors should be counsellors or mental health experts, he is effectively saying that all students ought to be able to expect that the staff that teach and support them have a basic level of awareness and competency over student mental health.
Even if an issue is identified, Wilkinson identified concerns with the interventions in place (particularly for neurodiverse students given an apparent focus on group based interventions) and also discussed concerns over the existence, frequency and accuracy of the recording and minuting of academic meetings with students: It was of concern to me that the university was unable to locate or provide clear minutes of supervisory catch ups, progress checks or agreed guidance or actions for Matthew. It was of further concern that the academic staff supporting and mentoring him in his third year had not provided written evidence of his progress or agreed minutes of actions etc to him.

The next case relates to the University of Bristol. Again, Wonkhe have the story.

Natasha’s father, Robert Abrahart, brought a legal action against the university alleging it had contributed to his daughter’s death by discriminating against her on the grounds of Disability contrary to the Equality Act 2010, and by breaching a duty of care owed her under the law of negligence.
In May 2022, a senior County Court Judge, Alex Ralton, ruled that the university discriminated against Natasha and that this contributed to her death. Ralton found that the university had breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments to the way it assessed Natasha, engaged in indirect Disability discrimination against Natasha, and treated Natasha unfavourably because of the consequences of her Disability.
But Ralton did not find that the university owed Natasha a common law duty of care. The High Court has now considered both an appeal from the university, and a cross-appeal on the duty of care issue.
The university’s appeal challenged the court’s finding that the university breached the duty to make reasonable adjustments, and challenged the court’s finding that the university breached section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination arising from Disability). Both areas failed.
…the university … failed in its argument that…the assessment of a student’s ability to explain laboratory work orally, to defend it and to answer questions on it was “a core competency of a professional scientist” and so not subject to the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
…The appeal judge …overall found that the County Court’s judgement – that the university’s reliance on due process and medical evidence before making adjustments did not outweigh its duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments – was sound, particularly given its awareness of Natasha’s challenges and the impact on her ability to participate in oral assessments.
Crucially, [the appeal judge] didn’t disagree with the County Court in rejecting the university’s arguments that it lacked sufficient knowledge or expertise as a defence for its inaction – and found that the university’s internal regulations and policies, while important, “must yield” to the legal requirements to accommodate students with disabilities. In fact, the procedures, in practice, became another barrier to making necessary adjustments.
….The university had argued that “legitimate aims” were rigorous assessment and fairness among all students and that that hadn’t been properly considered. That wasn’t washing with [the appeal judge]. Finding the original judgment’s findings to be permissible, he concluded that if complying with the duty to make reasonable adjustments would have resulted in Natasha attending and potentially performing better, then the marks and penalty points ascribed to her (which were, after all, based on her non-attendance or performance in the unmodified assessments) could not be deemed proportionate.

The response from the University of Bristol is here.

Harassment and sexual misconduct

A year since the OfS launched their consultation on their new approach to this, we are still waiting for the outcome: the consultation closed in May 2023. There’s an anniversary HEPI blog on the issues, which are complex and contested: perhaps why it is taking the OfS so long to reach a conclusion.

International

Recent updates have talked about the conflicting rhetoric on international students: Lord Jo Johnson has written in the FT with a plan to sort out the problem. Nice try; but the first two seem unlikely to catch on:

First, Westminster must fix the funding crisis. With domestic fees frozen for all but one of the last 10 years, universities lose money teaching home undergraduates. The government must inflation-proof fees, ideally by linking increased funding to outcomes and aligning interests of universities, taxpayers and students. Such a mechanism exists in the Higher Education and Research Act and was used in 2017 to lift fees to £9,250. Institutions that deliver great outcomes, as assessed by the Teaching Excellence Framework, should once again be allowed to raise fees in line with inflation.
Second, the government should ensure the Office for National Statistics only counts international students as net migration when they stay on post-study. In this framework, they would be included in migration figures when they transfer from the student visa to a graduate route or work visa. Otherwise, they would be treated as temporary residents or tourists.
Third, universities would commit to ensuring that entry requirements for international students are comparable to those for domestic ones. This can be measured using the actual grades held by those who have accepted offers. And it should, in theory, be a low-cost commitment, as universities claim to be doing it already.
Fourth, universities would commit to transparency on effective entry requirements. This means publishing the distribution of actual grades held by those accepted, broken down by course and domicile, as opposed to just the advertised entry requirements. There is often a wide difference between the two. This would, additionally, be a game-changer for widening access for disadvantaged domestic students, who will see that they have a chance of admission to many institutions with lower grades than advertised. [this is part of the UUK fair admissions code anyway]
Finally, the government should require every institution recruiting international students to provide an annual statement to the Office for Students. This should detail plans for the international student body, broken down by domicile and programme. Greater visibility into institutional recruitment is needed to reassure domestic stakeholders that international students are not crowding out domestic ones.

Student numbers and admissions

There has been concern about falling numbers taking up healthcare courses, recently. This story on Research Professional notes the fall in nursing applications.

Research Professional noted that some of the mission groups have written to the Secretaries of State for Education and Health calling for a cross government taskforce. You can read the letter via the University Alliance website here.

The mission groups argue the taskforce would:

bring together representatives from the Department for Education and the Department for Health and Social Care to meet alongside representatives from NHS England, health regulators, local government and higher education providers.
effectively co-ordinate activity to bolster student recruitment, work to find ways of increasing the capacity of clinical placements and medical school places, and develop strategies to ensure the recruitment and retention of staff.
help realise the Long-Term Plan’s ambitious targets for degree apprenticeships, and to tackle the low funding and high regulatory burden associated with delivering them.

Universities UK have issued a report on why students may not go ahead, based on a survey.

The future for student funding under a possible Labour government: the Welsh model?

As we have described before, we know very little about what a potential Labour government would do about HE funding: they want to make it both fairer and more affordable, they are not keen on capping ambition and reducing numbers, but there is no more money. The only thing we do know is that they are interested in what is happening in Wales on post-16 regulation. And it seems likely that they would improve maintenance funding, at least a bit.

So in that context this HEPI blog is interesting. HEPI are doing a tour and holding events this Spring to talk about how funding works across the UK and how it could be changed: I will report the outcomes.

And the Scottish model?

The IfS have published a report on the Scottish budget for higher Education Spending.

…. Unlike in the rest of the UK (where students are charged tuition fees), the Scottish Government meets the whole costs of teaching, and has controlled these costs in recent years by controlling the number of places for Scottish students and freezing per-student resources. Funding per student per year of study has fallen by 19% in real terms since 2013–14 and, as a result, Scottish universities are increasingly reliant on international student fees.
A cut to higher education resource funding … was announced at the Scottish Budget for 2024–25. This is a cash-terms cut of 6.0…. This implies that funding for home students will fall, with the Scottish Funding Council (which allocates funding to universities) trading off a further squeeze on per-student resources with potential cuts to the number of funded places.
Around £600 million is provided in the form of living cost support to students each year, the vast majority in the form of living cost loans (£500 million), alongside non-repayable bursaries of up to £2,000 per year for the poorest students. Living cost support has become less generous over time, with total support for the poorest students declining in real terms by 16% (£1,600 per year) between 2013–14 and 2022–23…..
A £900 cash increase in loan entitlements this academic year, in response to cost of living pressures, was the first real-terms increase in support since at least 2013–14. A much bigger increase of £2,400 per year is planned for next academic year. This delivers the Scottish Government’s commitment to provide a total package of student support ‘the equivalent of the Living Wage’ by 2024–25. The earnings threshold above which Scottish borrowers make student loan repayments is also set to increase in April 2024…. If there was full take-up of living cost support, these changes would increase average lifetime loan repayments in real terms by around £5,000, and increase average loan write-offs by around £3,400 per student.
Importantly, the costs of issuing loans to Scottish students, and of any eventual loan write-offs, are currently met by the UK government. Increases in generosity of support or in repayment terms for Scottish borrowers of the type planned for 2024–25 come at no cost to the Scottish Government’s main budget so long as this funding arrangement continues.
This system costs the Scottish Government around £850 million more per cohort (£28,700 more per student) than the English system would. From this spending, Scottish graduates on average gain £23,800 (largely through lower borrowing and loan repayments), and the UK taxpayer gains £4,900 per student in the form of lower loan write-offs.

Research Professional have the story here.

Freedom of speech

The implementation of the new legislation on freedom of speech continues. A new blog on the OfS website reminds us of where we are and of what is to come.

A reminder that we are currently consulting on our new free complaints scheme that we expect to launch on 1 August 2024. Students, staff and visiting speakers will be able to complain to us about restrictions on free speech at a university, college or relevant students’ union where they claim to have suffered adverse consequences. Under our proposals, if we find the complaint justified, we may make recommendations such as changes to policies or processes or payments to the complainant. Our consultation is open until 10 March 2024.
We have also been developing our proposed approach to the regulation of students’ unions in relation to their new free speech duties. This will be the first time the OfS directly regulates students’ unions and we expect our new role to take effect from 1 August 2024. We’re consulting on our proposals and this consultation is open until 17 March 2024.
In the coming weeks we expect to launch a further freedom of speech consultation. This will cover proposed guidance for universities, colleges and relevant students’ unions on securing free speech within the law and on publishing and maintaining a freedom of speech code of practice. At the same time, we will also consult on proposed revisions to the OfS’s regulatory framework to make reference to our new free speech functions. Finally, we will consult on our proposed approach to the recovery of costs in connection with our regulation in this area.

5 February 2024

Embedding Fairtrade in teaching and research: a panel discussion with the Fairtrade Foundation

Business Engagement, Fusion, Fusion themes, Student Engagement Roberta Discetti

Dear all,

As part of our BU Fairtrade weeks 2024, we are delighted to invite you to a panel discussion dedicated to academics with an interest in sustainability, to explore connections with Fairtrade through collaboration with the Fairtrade Foundation.

Date: February 27th at 2 pm – Fusion Building, room F305 (in-person only event).

BU is a Fairtrade University; we received the accreditation in 2022 with the highest possible score (3 stars out of 3) and we are among a very small group of universities worldwide to have achieved this. There are plenty of ways for academics to get involved with Fairtrade that will be explored in a panel discussion with the following speakers:

Elena Fernandez-Lee, Education Campaigning Manager at the Fairtrade Foundation: Elena will talk about the Fairtrade University scheme, discussing best practices to embed Fairtrade in teaching and research, and highlighting potential areas of collaboration with BU academics. Elena will also share about the Foundation’s new campaigns about climate justice and decolonization of the curriculum, and outline ways for BU academics to get involved.

Izzy Chalk, BU Sustainability Officer: Izzy will talk about BU’s journey to becoming accredited as a 3-star Fairtrade university, outlining best practices in embedding Fairtrade in the curriculum and emphasising further areas of collaboration between the Sustainability team and BU academics.

Dr Roberta Discetti, BU Fairtrade academic representative: Roberta will share some research-informed practices related to Fairtrade engagement, including NGO/academics cooperation, student co-creation, and multi-stakeholder collaborative initiatives.

The panel discussion will be followed by an optional 30-minute networking where we will have the opportunity to connect with our guest speaker Elena and discuss different ways of expanding the integration of Fairtrade in sustainability teaching and research. This event is open to all BU and AUB academics, to maximise opportunities for collaboration across departments and faculties.

Category / Student Engagement

The outlook for research at UK universities

Employability

Mental health and wellbeing

Foundation years

International

OfS funding review

Apprenticeships

Lifelong learning entitlement

Free speech

Politics and Parliament

Budget

Britain’s mood, measured weekly

Research and knowledge exchange: war on woke

Student experience, wellbeing and finances

Student experience: the Student Futures commission

Loan forgiveness for nursing students

International: Falling international recruitment

HE sector sustainability and change

Outreach work

Franchising investigation

Politics and Parliament

Universities UK manifesto

Future of apprenticeships:

Regional inequalities

Research and knowledge exchange: Spinouts

Education: Subcontracted provision

Duty of care

Harassment and sexual misconduct

International

Student numbers and admissions

The future for student funding under a possible Labour government: the Welsh model?

And the Scottish model?

Freedom of speech

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Search by popular post topics