A warm ‘hello!’ from your Research Staff Association (RSA) reps. Following the success of the first ‘Research Staff Coffee Breaks’, we are inviting all research staff to the second one on 10th June at 3-4pm.
The details for the coffee breaks are included below including the zoom links and log in details.
Please join us for this session – there’s no need to RSVP!
Unfortunately, we don’t have resources to send out coffee and cake but hopefully you can find something nice and can join us at some or all our breaks. We are looking into more formal provision of space and food and drink for when we are able to meet on campus but until then, we’re looking forward to meeting you virtually soon.
• Acknowledging the Complexity of Your Role: The Good Supervisory Practice Framework helps you navigate the wide-ranging, highly complex and demanding set of roles that modern research supervisors must undertake to perform the role effectively. Informed by academic research and approved by the sector, the 10 criteria of the GSPF acknowledges this complexity and sets a benchmark of good practice for all supervisors.
• Identify your professional development needs: Reflecting on your own practice, compared to a benchmark of good practice, often reveals new perspectives on the challenges inherent in supervision. Identifying your strengths and weaknesses enables you to build upon the former and address the latter with targeted professional development.
• Recognition of your expertise by a national body: Becoming a UKCGE Recognised Research Supervisor, you can demonstrate to your university, peers and candidates that your supervisory practice has been recognised by a national body.
The workshop will guide you through the process for gaining recognition and help you to start reflecting on your practice and drafting your application in the supplied workbook, to follow nearer to the event.
Today Prof. Vanora Hundley, based in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences, gave a well-received presentation on ‘Changing the narrative around childbirth: whose responsibility is it?’ at the 32nd ICM (International Confederation of Midwives) Virtual Triennial Congress. Prof. Hundley presented online a BU collaboration published in the journal Evidence-based Midwifery [1]. This presentation is part of a larger body of interdisciplinary work between media and heatlh scholars at Bournemouth University [see 2-6].
The finding that UK midwives fear the media resonates with experiences from many other countries and professional groups. There is a need to change media discourse in fictional and factual representations of childbirth, and midwives have a critical role to play in this, but to do this they need to equip themselves with the skills necessary to engage with the media. Guidelines on responsible media reporting could ensure that media producers portray pregnancy, midwifery
and maternity care as naturally as possible.
Angell, C. (2017) An Everyday Trauma: How the Media Portrays Infant Feeding, In: Luce, A. et al. (Eds.) Midwifery, Childbirth and the Media, London: Palgrave Macmillan pp: 45-59.
Hundley, V., Duff, E., Dewberry, J., Luce, A., van Teijlingen, E. (2014) Fear in childbirth: are the media responsible? MIDIRS Midwifery Digest24(4): 444-447.
Hundley, V., Luce, A., van Teijlingen, E. (2015) Do midwives need to be more media savvy? MIDIRS Midwifery Digest25(1):5-10.
The DRIVE project (Digital Reading for Inclusivity, Versatility and Engagement) was funded by the UKRI under its Digital Innovation for Development in Africa (DIDA) strand. Full details of the project can be found here. The second phase of this funding has been withdrawn following the UK Government’s revision of its ODA budget.
The project was led by BU Professor Bronwen Thomas, and Jess Ruddock (a PGR from FMC) was appointed as a Research Assistant from January onwards.
The project had to be substantially revised due to the COVID crisis. This meant all project meetings had to be held online but perhaps the biggest impact was on the digital storytelling part of the project. Initially, the plan was for DigiTales, a participatory media company based in the UK and Portugal to deliver a workshop in Nairobi, with 10-12 participants. Instead, we redesigned this part of the project, providing training for three Kenyan based facilitators to deliver the workshops in three different regions of Kenya – Nairobi, Chavakali (close to the Ugandan border) and Loita (home to Maasai tribespeople). Jess Ruddock also took part in the training. Following this we held three workshops in the different locations, producing 13 stories in total. The stories can be viewed on the project website. They represent a wide range of experiences, from Alan’s account of the stigma he suffered as a child in literature classrooms because of his visual impairment, to Faith’s account of the impact that the book Blossoms of the Savannah had on her as a young Maasai girl facing the prospect of female circumcision. In addition to learning how to create and produce digital stories, the participants were also given training on accessibility tools for the iPads that they received
Nalotwesha and Faith on a zoom call in Loita
Blog posts from one of the Nairobi participants, Alan Hebert, and from the Chavakali facilitator can also be found on the website, along with Jess Ruddock’s account of the training.
The Chavakali team
In addition to the digital stories, the project team produced a Toolkit for remote delivery of digital storytelling, co-authored by Kelvin Gwuma, Joseph Odhiambo and Scola Leuka, the three newly-trained facilitators. The Toolkit is available to view or download from the project website here along with video case studies produced by the facilitators. The website also features a preliminary project evaluation reflecting on the main findings and impact of the project so far, and how we managed to meet our objectives despite all the obstacles we faced.
A warm ‘hello!’ from your Research Staff Association (RSA) reps. Following the success of the first ‘Research Staff Coffee Breaks’, we are inviting all research staff to the second one on 10th June at 3-4pm.
The details for the coffee breaks are included below including the zoom links and log in details.
Please join us for this session – there’s no need to RSVP!
Unfortunately, we don’t have resources to send out coffee and cake but hopefully you can find something nice and can join us at some or all our breaks. We are looking into more formal provision of space and food and drink for when we are able to meet on campus but until then, we’re looking forward to meeting you virtually soon.
This is a reminder that on Thursday 22nd July 2021 from 2-4pm, RDS will be hosting a virtual STEAMLab event under the strategic investment area (SIA) of Medical Science.
Research Development and Support (RDS) run induction sessions for all new starters and those who want a refresher in research. We recently revamped these so that we could have more interactive conversation on the induction day. In order to do this, we created a series of videos, which were sent to attendees three weeks’ beforehand.
We’re now making these videos available to all BU staff who want to get started with research at BU or want a refresher.
The videos can be found on Brightspace. The link should take you to the section ‘RDS Academic and Researcher Induction’ (if it doesn’t, you just need to scroll down to this section). There are nine videos in total (most are quite short and the longest one (five) runs to ~20 minutes). The video topics are:
Overview of research at BU and Research Development and Support (RDS)
Overview of the Funding Development Team
Overview of the Project Delivery Team
Overview of the Knowledge Exchange and Impact Team
As a reminder, you can find a whole host of supporting information on research at BU on the research blog under ‘research toolkit‘ and ‘research lifecycle‘.
Following the discovery of the unmarked graves of 215 children in Kamloops (British Columbia, Canada) sees BU expertise on mass grave policies published:Overarching principles ought to be applied in Kamloops for a careful, considerate, culturally appropriate investigation into the unmarked graves of 215 children
Mass graves are a worldwide phenomenon that exists on a shocking scale, but they are usually identified with conflict and gross human rights violations, typically in countries ravaged by poverty and inequality. Yet the discovery of the unmarked graves of 215 children in Kamloops, British Columbia has made global headlines, triggering a variety of emotions, reactions and questions.
Amidst the outpouring of grief and mourning, there are calls for prompt and thorough investigations into the shocking legacy of government-funded residential schools that operated for more than a century and were designed to systematically assimilate Indigenous children and destroy Indigenous cultures and languages.
But there is also the immediate question of how best to protect and deal with the discovered graves and the human remains at the site of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School. Mass graves contain evidence that is essential to the realization of truth, justice and accountability goals for victims and their families, the affected communities – in the present case represented by Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation – but also the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation and, generally, the government of Canada.
Overarching principles for protection and investigation efforts
Although mass graves vary enormously, the consequences of not protecting and investigating mass graves are significant. Relatives continue to suffer because they do not know what happened to their loved ones (in itself a form of inhumane and degrading treatment), and evidence essential to identification, documentation and, where relevant, prosecution efforts may be contaminated, disturbed or lost. The careful, considerate, culturally appropriate yet legally compliant and scientifically robust protection and investigation of mass graves is therefore paramount, and has been the subject of significant research and deliberation, as evidenced by the 2020 publication of the Bournemouth Protocol on Mass Grave Protection and Investigation (also available in French).
As further details and information emerge on the discovery in Kamloops, it seems apt to reflect on the overarching principles that ought to apply during grave protection and investigation efforts in this particular context.
From the outset, the complexity of mass grave investigations should not be underestimated. Such investigations are lengthy and expensive processes, requiring significant planning, co-ordination, resources, official authorization and, at times, political will. All this means that there will be a wide range of individual, collective and societal interests and needs that must be considered but may not all be compatible or readily reconcilable. In addition – and this may sound distressing – in situations of significant scale or absence of the relevant data from relatives, it may not be possible to identify and return all victims from a mass grave. It is therefore vital that, despite the inevitable pressure of a highly charged emotional context, expectations are carefully managed.
A simulated mass grave, May 13, 2021, at Trigon Estate in rural Dorset, England, where forensic excavations are performed by Bournemouth University MSc Forensic Anthropology and Archaeology students of the Faculty of Science and Technology. Photo courtesy of the author.
A do no harm approach in these circumstances will actively seek to avoid undermining existing structures and relationships that are essential for community cohesion. It is important to avoid creating inequalities or perceptions of bias or to entrench existing inequalities. It will include a clear respect for and, where possible, adherence to cultural sensitivities, beliefs and norms of victims and/or their families to the extent they do not adversely affect the achievement of an effective investigation.
The physical and emotional safety of all involved, the relatives and the investigation team alike, are paramount. In the context of mass graves, safety, dignity, privacy and well-being of victims and their families should be a key concern for all actors without distinction. While the actual grave may have been created decades ago when the Kamloops Indian Residential School was in operation, initiatives to support physical and psychological safety should be in place.
Investigations must be independent and impartial
That an investigation should be independent and impartial is a rather obvious point to make. And yet, since the investigation will relate to an era of systematic state-instigated discrimination, it is poignant and relevant: without a non-discriminatory and impartial approach to the grave protection and investigation process, the legitimacy of the work may be questioned by the affected community. To enhance public trust, investigations must be independent and impartial and must be seen to be so.
For mass grave investigations to result in identification, it will be critical to acquire personal details and other identifying data, and confidentiality, consistent with national legislation, has to be assured. Investigative processes often entail the need for data sharing but any data sharing should be limited only to those individuals and bodies necessary to ensure the achievement of the objectives of the exhumation process and to the extent agreed by the individuals concerned. Similarly, at all stages of the process (the preliminary investigation, the actual excavation, identification and return of human remains) transparency of processes is key.
Clear and ongoing communication will help provide the platform for transparency. Communication strategies should ideally envisage and accommodate a two-way flow of information between the investigative team and the families, and incorporate regular updates.
Commitments to families must be kept
Finally, all parties involved in the protection and investigation of the mass grave should avoid making commitments to families that they may be unable to keep.
In addition to these overarching principles that ought to apply to all phases of mass grave protection and investigation, careful planning for the actual physical investigation is essential. Meticulous planning, particularly in relation to the actual excavation is critical for all subsequent phases of the process, including identification efforts, return of human remains and continued community liaison.
But in the long term beyond the investigative phase, there are also justice and commemorative aspects to consider from a policy perspective. Alongside potential accountability processes and claims for remedies, a further question arises: What will happen to the original site at the school? An excavated mass grave may become a memorial site in its own right, deserving of that recognition and potentially long-term legal protection. Conversely, a newly created burial site or place for commemoration will hold great significance for individual and/or collective commemoration and may also constitute a form of reparation.
Mass graves are a stark reminder of recent history and memory; they may form part of educational materials and national discourse on the past; they may also become a site for community support. These graves in particular may symbolize the start of more searches into unknown graves and resting places. As reported in the media, many more children died in residential schools with few bodies returned home.
Co-ordination and collaboration required
Since it is predicted that more such graves are to be found, their resolution and investigation will require the co-ordination and collaboration of a multitude of experts to implement early protection measures, facilitate, where possible, the investigation and exhumation of the grave for identification purposes and the return of human remains to family members. All this, in turn, must be overseen by relevant authorities, with due regard for the applicable law.
If there is suspicion of more such graves, the establishment of a mass grave management role or office that assumes overall responsibility for the operational management of mass graves including adherence to standard operating procedures; maintenance of community liaison, health, safety and well-being on-site; implementation of reporting structures and communication strategy; and co-ordination of the identification and return of human remains process might be beneficial.
In short, mass graves are incredibly complex features placing investigative duties on the state. This in turn requires extensive practitioner engagement, resources and careful consideration of individual and societal needs to ultimately advance their rights to truth and justice.
The Horizon Europe Regulation was published on 12 May and we were expecting to see the first Work Programme published by the European Commission in the same week. However, since then, the publication has been delayed several times, and while some calls have already opened and closed (ERC, emergency COVID-19, EIC), most of the main calls have not been published.
According to UKRO, the reason for this delay is the on-going discussions on eligibility criteria for certain topics in specific Work Programme parts, related to whether topics in selected areas will be open to the participation of Associated Countries. A positive vote on the Horizon Europe Work Programme by Member States this week would allow a publication within the next two weeks.
If the Work Programme is agreed by mid-June, as currently expected, the European Commission will organise online info sessions on the first calls at the end of June or the beginning of July. If there is a further delay, the timetable for calls might need to be revised more substantially.
UKRO understands that the European Commission wants to maintain a period of at least three months between the opening of calls and respective deadlines. If the Work Programme is agreed by mid-June, and calls launch simultaneously, this will mean a delay of a few weeks to deadlines compared to the original schedule where calls would have been launched in mid-March.
This delay of the calls does not affect UK participation and UK entities have already started participating in the first Horizon Europe calls or are in the process of submitting proposals. UK entities can apply to the calls once they open, as confirmed by the European Commission.
On Thursday 27 May, we held our first Research Staff Coffee Break. We welcomed researchers* from across BU (virtually!) for an informal catch-up session over cups of tea and great coffee.
(*This is a very loose term – everyone is welcome, whether research is the majority of your role or a tiny part!)
We began by introducing the BU Research Staff Association (RSA), who organised the event. The RSA is an association run by BU researchers from all faculties who want to make BU a great place to work and do research. We aim to ensure that researchers are supported to realise their full potential and to develop and produce research of the highest quality. We are a friendly group who want to make sure we support and represent BU researchers in the best way we can.
At the start of the session we raised 2 questions for discussion:
Is there anything you have struggled with as a researcher during Covid?
Is there anything the RSA could do that is useful for you as a researcher?
These were just to get us started – in the course of the Coffee Break we covered subjects ranging from the pros & cons of working from home during Covid, to tips on how to run a virtual conference.
We also talked about possible future sessions which the RSA might run, including sessions on Writing Grant Bids and on Applying for Pay Progression.
It was lovely to see everyone’s faces, get to know people a bit better, and take some time away from meetings / marking to talk about some of the issues we are struggling with – as well as share things which are going well.
Our next Research Staff Coffee Break will be on Thursday 10 June at 3-4pm, via Zoom.
During the Coffee Break, we’ll chat about Recovering From Covid Disruption As A Researcher. We’d love to see you there!
As the RSA, we want to run events which are of most interest to researchers at BU. If you have 5 minutes to spare, it would be great if you could fill out our survey so that we can make sure the RSA is putting on events which you would find useful – please find the link here (it should only take 5 minutes to complete):
Finally, if you did want to contact any of your RSA reps to discuss any issues confidentially, our contact details are below:
At the time of running this call for proposals, it is not known for certain that in-person events will be possible or practical at the time of the festival in November. As a result, you may propose either;
An event/activity that is will be held online/remotely, or can otherwise be delivered within measures restricting events.
OR
An in-person event or activity, with an online/remote backup plan.
About the ESRC Festival of Social Science
When
For the first time, the Festival will run for the whole month of November 2021.
What
The festival offers a fascinating insight into some of the country’s leading social science research and how it influences our social, economic and political lives – both now and in the future. The website for the 2020 Festival shows the breadth and variety of activities that are possible.
This year represents the 19th ESRC Festival of Social Science. Taking place over the whole month of November 2021, the festival is back at Bournemouth University for the tenth year running.
The celebration of the social sciences takes place across the UK – via public debates, conferences, workshops, interactive seminars, film screenings, exhibitions and much more.
Events can target a variety of non-academic audiences including young people, the public, third sector, business or government.
The festival provides an excellent opportunity for BU researchers to try their hand at public engagement with research. Support for events is provided by BU’s Knowledge Exchange and Impact Team and funding of up to £1,000 is available to deliver your event.
Environment/ COP26 Theme
The UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) takes place in November 2021. The ESRC are particularly keen to see participating institutions hold events that combine social science with an environmental theme. In particular;
inspiring action – what can be done to improve our environment and reduce climate change
individual or local changes that can make a difference with respect to climate change
relatable stories about individuals and climate change from around the world
Although encouraged, adhering to the environment/ COP26 theme is not mandatory for your proposal. Other social science themes are still welcome
How to apply
Bournemouth University is an official festival partner and will run several events as part of the festival. Applicants should apply directly to BU’s Public Engagement team, NOT to the ESRC.
If you would like to discuss your event idea, please contact the Public Engagement Team, who can support you to design your event.
Who can apply?
Applications are open to BU researchers based in the UK, and may involve any outside partners. Applicants need not be social science researchers, but the planned event/activity must feature BU social science research.
What’s involved in organising a festival event?
Deciding on the intended outcomes and audience for your event
Designing the format of your event
Investigating an appropriate venue for your event that will be appropriate to your audience
Identifying and inviting your attendees
Advertising your event via your networks, website and social media channels
Setting up and delivering your event on the day
Using your social media channels to create discussion at and around your event
Evaluating your event to see if you achieved your intended outcomes
Celebrating your event successes – perhaps with a BU research blog post
What support is available?
The Public Engagement Team can advise and support you on all aspects of your event – from proposal stage through to delivery. We can help you with identifying and addressing your audience, planning a successful event, marketing to the right people and maximising impact. We can advise on online engagement, including choosing a platform, measuring impact online, and finding an audience. For in-person events we can advise on venues, travel, catering, registration. We can also support your event on the day – online or in-person.
The ESRC will advertise your event on their website and social media. They will also provide banners and materials for your event, if possible, to brand it as part of the Festival
A joint message from BU and UCU was published this week about the importance of research activity at Bournemouth University and the importance of having protected time to engage actively in research. You can read the message here: REF, research & advancing knowledge/enriching society.
In addition to our snapshots of friends and family, holidays and special events, some of us also take pictures of things just because they caught our interest. We were thinking about something else, when suddenly – as if with a tap on the shoulder – our attention was drawn to the sight of… two children playing in a park, an old house, or a bicycle lying by the side of the road.
But we don’t know those children, or the people who lived in that house – and that’s not our bicycle.
This project explores the possibility that, when our attention is attracted to scenes with which we have no logical or personal connection, it is because we recognised something about the scene or the elements within it as an symbolic description of the way we see the world – or perhaps as an allegorical self-portrait.
This project will encourage participants to reflect on the possible significance of their apparently ‘random’ snapshots – and to consider them as potentially valuable sources of personal insight.
Over the course of (approximately) two months, participants will be asked to:
Take photographs of scenes to which your attention is intuitively attracted
Meet three times (online) for approximately one hour each time (twice with the researcher and the other participants – and once one-on-one with the researcher)
Describe and discuss your thoughts and reactions to the things you have photographed
Full anonymity is guaranteed.
The following are regrettably excluded from participation:
Those with prior training or expertise in photography
Those with prior training or expertise in psychology/psychotherapy
Those under 18 years of age
Undergraduates
If interested in taking part in this project, please contact Rutherford@bournemouth.ac.uk
Our research work is presented this week (June 7 – 9, 2021) at the International BCI (Brain-Computer Interface) Meeting 2021. The topic is “interbrain synchrony and the prisoner’s dilemma game: an approach to social anxiety“. Marcia Saul will be presenting this work – virtually, unfortunately.
A warm ‘hello!’ from your Research Staff Association (RSA) reps. Following the success of the first ‘Research Staff Coffee Breaks’, we are inviting all research staff to the second one on 10th June at 3-4pm.
The details for the coffee breaks are included below including the zoom links and log in details.
Please join us for this session – there’s no need to RSVP!
Unfortunately, we don’t have resources to send out coffee and cake but hopefully you can find something nice and can join us at some or all our breaks. We are looking into more formal provision of space and food and drink for when we are able to meet on campus but until then, we’re looking forward to meeting you virtually soon.
A short update this week in a short week – but we know you’d miss it if we didn’t do an update. And it’s an interesting one, with gossip and rebellion, and some hard(ish) data too.
Staff changes
It was announced after we published last week that Chris Millward would not be staying on at the OfS as Director for Fair Access and Participation when his contract ends in December. No reasons are given, but it prompted Research Professional to speculate about Nicola Dandridge’s future as her contract also ends then. These are political appointments – as RP point out, Chris was appointed in 2017 by then education secretary Justine Greening, then universities minister Jo Johnson and then OfS chair Michael Barber. Times (and ministers) have changed a lot since then.
Of course there have also been rumours about changes at ministerial level too. Only recently there was a story about a possible imminent reshuffle (which didn’t happen) in which more women would be promoted, and we have seen stories that Michelle Donelan is tipped for promotion. Meanwhile the Mail reported in April that Gavin Williamson was “desperately pleading” to be reshuffled into the chief whip position. And that was before this week’s news on catch up funding for schools.
Given that new appointees to all these posts are likely to be very much “party line” people, and the new Chair of the OfS is already in place and setting the tone for the regulator, it would be surprising if changes made a big difference to HE policy. But we might hope for a change in tone and better communications strategies. Fewer emails late at night on a Friday, for example.
Development budget rebellion
We haven’t had a good parliamentary bust-up for a while. Not that we are missing evenings in front of Parliament TV trying to work out how many rebels it would take to pass the various motions on Brexit. Honestly, we don’t miss it.
The news today was full of a rebellion among conservative MPs over the cuts in the aid budget. The MPs are using an amendment to the ARIA bill, which starts its report stage on Monday, to reinstate the commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on international aid. These sorts of hijacks are rarely successful, partly because to be successful the speaker would first have to select the amendment, which they often don’t in these circumstances because it is deemed to be “outside the scope” of the bill or because it reopens an issue that has been discussed before in another more appropriate context. But these sorts of parliamentary shenanigans do sometimes encourage the government to promise a rethink rather than risk a very embarrassing defeat in the House of Commons. Note local MP Tobias Ellwood, who has been vocal on this issue, is among the rebels with his name on the amendment.
If you are interested, the amendment papers are here (they are likely to be updated before Monday) and as well as the aid one, include amendments about ARIA being carbon neutral, one about Ministerial conflicts of interest in financial matters and one reversing the proposal in the Bill that ARIA should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and public procurement rules.
Fees, funding and rebates
Augar implementation: Following our coverage over the last couple of weeks on rumours about changes to the fees and funding architecture in England and in particular, the focus on the link between outcomes and funding (see more below on outcomes). HEPI has a blog on “mapping the policy influence of Augar”. There are some lovely clear graphics which highlight, through their traffic light colour scheme, where government has been focussing. Not on HE. Yet.
The analysis highlights that the Government has responded in full to 21% (11) of the recommendations with partial responses to a further 30% (16) of them. This leaves 49% (26) that have yet to responded to in public at this current time. When you combine the yes and positive responses you see that we have a slim majority of recommendations that have received some form of response in a policy or practical manner.
Rebates: The Students’ Unions at LSE and Sheffield University have been leading a campaign for students to receive a rebate for tuition fees for this year. You can read their letter to Gavin Williamson here. They commissioned London Economics to review the options. You can see the analysis here. It’s complicated, and there are lots of scenarios. Note that if the rumours are true (see last week’s policy update) and the government are already looking at changing repayment terms to improve their bottom line, adopting these solutions to “pay” for a rebate would reduce their wiggle room to use it to pay for other things. And one option is increasing the interest rate, when as we reported, there are lots of people arguing to reduce it.
The costs:
A notional 30% rebate represents approximately £1.39 billion. Of this total, approximately £0.88 billion is associated with students commencing their studies while £0.51 billion is associated with continuing students.
Illustrating the per student estimates, the rebate for a full-time undergraduate and postgraduate international students were estimated to be between £5,200 and £5,300 each.
The corresponding estimates for full-time postgraduate English domiciled and EU-domiciled students attending English higher education providers were estimated to be £2,100 and £2,300 respectively.
Although eligible for student support (and hence considered in detail in the remainder of the presentation), a 30% rebate for full time English-domiciled and EU-domiciled undergraduate students studying in England corresponds to £2,700 per student (and would total approximately £1.1 billion for all full-time and part-time 1st year students and £1.9 billion for full-time and part-time continuing students).
Some interesting facts:
Under the current funding system in 2020-21 (i.e. the Baseline), the Exchequer contributes approximately £10.656bn per cohort to the funding of higher education. In terms of constituent components, given that the RAB charge (i.e. the proportion of the total loan balance written off) stands at approximately 53.9%, maintenance loan write-offs cost the Exchequer £4.019bn per cohort, while tuition fee loan write-offs cost £5.395bn per cohort. The provision of Teaching Grants to higher education institutions (for high-cost subjects) results in additional costs of £1.242bn per cohort.
Higher education institutions receive approximately £11.147bn per cohort in net income, made up of approximately £10.093bn in tuition fee income (from undergraduate students), as well as £1.242bn in Teaching Grant income. Against this, institutions contribute approximately £189 million per cohort in fee and maintenance bursaries (predominantly the latter) in exchange for the right to charge tuition fees in excess of the ‘Basic Fee’ (£6,165 per annum for full-time students).
From the perspective of students/graduates, the average debt on graduation (including accumulated interest) was estimated to be £47,000 (for full-time undergraduate degree students), while the average lifetime repayments made stood at £34,800 for male graduates and £13,100 for female graduates.
We estimate that approximately 88.2% of all graduates never repay their full loan by the end of the repayment period, while 33.0% never make any loan repayment.
Their conclusions:
The core cost to the Exchequer of offering a non-means tested tuition fee grant of £2,700 to all undergraduate starting students stands at approximately £1.009 bn (Scenario 2).
This can be partially offset (by £782 million) by equivalently reducing tuition fee loans (Scenario 1), or totally offset by extending the repayment period to 36 years (Scenario 3); reducing the repayment threshold to £24,500 (Scenario 4); or increasing the maximum real interest rate to 6.2% (Scenario 5).
Depending on the option selected, there are very considerable differences on which graduates are impacted.
The important thing that these students’ unions have done for us, via some robust modelling, is to first remind us that maintenance really matters. Putting a cash payment in for students that would hit their actual pocket now would make lots of sense, relieve many of them of some commercial debt, and stimulate economies. And as a gesture of goodwill, it would be inherently fair.
But crucially, it also cleverly reminds us that in the debate about making England’s higher education system cheaper that will now follow in the run-up to the Autumn’s Augar response, there are important choices to make about the “balance” between the three options of reducing student numbers, reducing spend per head and making the scheme more efficient – and there are further important choices within “making the scheme more efficient” that would impact different graduates in different ways.
Above all, in this Gordian knot shapeshifter of a hybrid system that we have – which presents as a loan one minute and a graduate tax the next – it reminds us that the more we move the system “back” towards a traditional loan scheme, the more regressive such a move would be.
Graduate outcomes
The Ofs have issued new experimental data on local variations in graduate opportunities. For those of us who have been pointing out for a while that one of the risks of using non-contextualised outcomes data is that it ignores regional differences in employment opportunity and reward, it will come as no surprise that:
in England, areas with highest concentration of well-paid graduates (those earning over £23,000) are London, Reading, Slough and Heathrow – where 70 per cent of graduates earn over £23,000 or are in further study three years after graduation
areas with the lowest earnings – where 52 per cent of graduates earn over £23,000 or are in high-level study – are mainly in the Midlands, and North and South-West England, with coastal towns facing particular challenges
So, given all this, why is the OfS proposal, energetically supported by the government, to measure quality at university by absolute measures of employment and salary? It seems bizarre to undermine the messages about levelling up, place-based strategy and local educational needs by encouraging universities through quality measures to send as many graduates as possible away to London or other metropolitan hot spots where they will earn more? You can explore the data using interactive maps, although they aren’t very interactive (you can zoom, in a clunky way), and hover to check your geographical knowledge.
The full report is here. It is light on analysis, it is just a presentation of the methodology, but there is one illustration of how the data could be used:
To illustrate how the groupings could be applied, we used the LEO earnings-based grouping to dig deeper into differences in employment outcomes between black and white graduates. We found that:
Overall, 60 per cent of white graduates earned above the threshold (around £23,000) or were in higher-level study, compared to 57.5 per cent of black graduates.
However, this masks some of the difference between the groups, because black graduates were almost four times more likely to live in the areas with the highest graduate opportunity rates.
When only graduates living in top quintile areas were considered, 73.5 per cent of white graduates earned above the threshold or were in higher-level study, compared to 59.9 per cent of black graduates. This gap is significantly larger than the overall gap.
Conversely, for black and white graduates in the bottom quintile similar proportions earned above the threshold or were in higher-level study (52.1 per cent compared to 51.9 per cent).
Wonkhe have an article by David Kernohan with graphs, of course. He starts out with a critique of the data itself and then does what you were probably already doing in your head, and visualising what happens if you overlay the locations of universities on the map. Overall he concludes that it’s a start for a conversation.
And just because maps are fun to compare, we remind you about this HEPI report on regional policy and R&D from May. Sadly it doesn’t have any actual maps, but it does have charts of UK R&D and regional business R&D spend (figures 8 and 9). Not surprisingly the regions in the bottom two thirds on both these tables coincide with the big areas of red on the two previous charts.
Equality of access and outcomes in HE
So while we are on the topic of outcomes, the House of Commons Library has a new research paper on equality of access and outcomes in HE in England. These library reports are written to be politically neutral for the benefit of MPs across the House. They contain a useful summary of the data, the policy context and a lot of useful links so are a useful reference point. Here are some of the highlights from the executive summary:
Gender: Women are much more likely to go to university than men and have been for many years. They are also more likely to complete their studies and gain a first or upper second-class degree. However, after graduation, men are more likely to be in ‘highly skilled’ employment or further study just after graduation. Male graduate average earnings are around 8% higher than female earnings one year after graduation. This earnings gap grows substantially over their early careers and reaches 32% ten years after graduation.
Ethnicity:
White pupils are less likely than any other broad ethnic group to go to higher education. Pupils from Chinese, Indian and Black African backgrounds have the highest entry rates. Black Caribbean pupils have particularly low entry rates to more prestigious universities.
Black students are more likely to drop out from higher education than other ethnic groups and least likely to achieve a first or upper second-class degree. In contrast, White students are least likely to drop out and most likely to achieve a first or upper second-class degree.
White graduates have the highest employment rates of any ethnic group. Chinese, Black and graduates from ‘Other’ ethnic groups have the lowest. Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Black Caribbean graduates earn the least, whereas Chinese, Indian and Mixed White and Asian graduates earn the most. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said subject choice is important when looking at differences in graduate earnings by ethnic group. It said Asian students tend to choose “higher-return subjects than their Black and White peers.”
Disability: Students with reported disabilities are more likely to drop out from higher education and less likely to achieve a first or upper second-class degree. Those who reported a mental health disability have the highest drop-out rates. Disabled students are also less likely to be in highly skilled employment or higher study soon after completing their first degree. Students who reported a ’social and communication’ disability (such as Autistic Spectrum Disorder) have particularly low rates.
Socio-economic status
Pupils eligible for free school meals are much less likely than other pupils to go into higher education, particularly to more prestigious universities. They are also almost twice as likely to drop out before the start of their second year in higher education. Graduates who were eligible for free school meals are slightly less likely to be in employment or further study and they earn around 10% less than other graduates.
There is a very clear pattern showing that students from areas with higher levels of deprivation are more likely to drop out of university. There are also clear links between deprivation and achievement of first or upper second-class degrees and progression to highly skilled employment or higher study. Students from areas with higher deprivation levels have poorer outcomes than those from areas with low deprivation.
Analysis of entry rates shows a clear link between current and past levels of higher education in the area the pupil comes from. The entry rate in the top (POLAR –‘Participation of Local Areas’) group – the areas with the highest levels of participation in the past – is more than twice that in the lowest one. There are also higher levels of drop out and poorer attainment among those from the lower POLAR areas. These students, however, have slightly higher levels of employment and/or further study, than those from higher POLAR areas. However, this does not continue to average salaries which are 16-18% higher in the top POLAR group than in the lowest one at both one year and ten years after graduation.
…Intersectional analysis White boys eligible for free school meals are less likely to go to higher education than any other groups when analysed by gender, free school meal eligibility and broad ethnic groups. White boys who were not eligible for free meals (and hence from less disadvantaged backgrounds) are also less likely than average to go to higher education.
Drop-out rates are higher among minority ethnic groups (combined) than for White students and this does not change based on the level of deprivation in the local areas they come from. The gap in drop-out rates between male and female students was greater for those from more deprived areas, with male students from more deprived areas more likely to drop out.
White students from the lowest POLAR groups have a higher level of attainment at university than students from minority ethnic groups. This is true even for those from the top three POLAR groups (combined). The gap between male and female students was greater for those from less deprived areas.
The gaps in progression rates (graduates entering highly skilled employment or higher study) between White and minority ethnic students from similarly deprived areas have fallen over the past five years. Progression rates for minority ethnic students are the same for those from both higher and lower POLAR groups at around 70%. Similarly, around 70% of White students from lower POLAR groups have entered highly skilled employment or higher study. Progression rates for White students from higher POLAR groups were higher at around 74%.
Subscribe!
To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.
External readers: Thank you to our external readers who enjoy our policy updates. Not all our content is accessible to external readers, but you can continue to read our updates which omit the restricted content on the policy pages of the BU Research Blog – here’s the link.
Did you know? You can catch up on previous versions of the policy update on BU’s intranet pages here. Some links require access to a BU account- BU staff not able to click through to an external link should contact eresourceshelp@bournemouth.ac.uk for further assistance.
JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER
VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer
Call for Expressions of Interest to Participate in day 2 of an Online Symposium 2021. Deadline midnight (UTC), 18th June 2021.
The Telepresence to Teletrust Symposium is a two-day event focusing on the ,‘third space’ between tangible and mediated presence’. The event takes place on-line on 8-9th July 2021 and is organised by the EMERGE research centre.
Day 1 is open to the public to enjoy presentations from a rich list of expert speakers.
Day 2 is reserved for a limited number of participants interested in participating in workshops that take a ‘deep dive’ into the subject and designed to expand and intensify research opportunities in this field.
Please take a close look at the outline of the symposium’s principal aims below. If you care to participate in day 2 then send an expression of interest with a brief summary (200-500 words) of how your research or practice relates to the themes by the deadline, midnight (UTC), 18th June 2021.
Live telepresence through new platforms such as Zoom, Teams, Facetime, Jitsi etc have become fully embedded in our lives. Like it or not this way of being together is here to stay. In the post-Covid push for a zero-carbon economy, international travel will be radically curtailed and remote working will become if not the norm then far more common. Welcome to a world of virtual assemblies and blended communications.
This symposium aims to recuperate the rich resource of spatial and temporal experimentation that artists and creative researchers have developed over many years. Our conviction is that these experiments will help us move towards richer and more embodied forms of virtual encounter. In addition we aim to use the event to crystalise these ambitions in the form of proposals for exhibitions and/or a publication, a critical primer, an ABC of Telepresence, a phenomenology of Telematics.
The talks and presentations are encouraged in but not limited to of the themes of embodiment, society, aesthetics and politics, refracted through the lens of the following questions:
How is the proliferation telepresence changing what it means to be reflexively ‘present’ to one another?
what scope might there be to shape new directions for these platforms that go beyond the ghostly dance of endless ‘talking-heads’?
How we are to avoid the emergence new forms of alienation?
Given that billions of live feeds can be seen as just one more stage in a process of endless fragmentation what are the possibilities for creating a third space between tangible and mediated presence, stepping outside the usual binaries of the real and the virtual?
How do we provoke creative responses that break the frame and go beyond the limitations of existing platforms?
Practical Information
Day 1 principal speakers will give presentations will be followed by panels and Q&A.
Day 2 will start with a facilitated workshop asking participants to use the one of the existing teleconferencing platforms in imaginative, anarchic, chaotic, collaborative, and unexpected ways modelling new modes of talking and thinking about Telepresence.” Following this there will be intensive workshops with an aim to generate chapter proposals for a forthcoming critical primer on Telepresence.
Confirmed speakers for day 1:
Prof. Caroline Nevejan, Chief Science Officer City of Amsterdam. www.nevejan.org
Sign up now for free training and tailored feedback on public engagement with research.
Getting started in public engagement with research
Thursday, 24th June 2021
11.00-12.30
Online
This workshop aims to get academics from zero or little PER experience to a position where they are confident carrying out activity with awareness of audience, delivery and evaluation.
This workshop will cover the status of public engagement in the research landscape; why it is important and what it can do for researchers. We’ll cover how to identify audiences and target their needs and expectations by designing public engagement activity around them. In addition, the workshop will go into the logistics of public engagement – from securing funding through planning, developing skills and the support offered at BU. Finally, we’ll discuss how to evaluate engagement activity to provide evidence for impact, insights into improving your activity and to provide further opportunity for engagement.
This 1.5 hour session consists of two parts;
30 minutes
A pre-recorded training video, recorded by BU Engagement Officer Adam Morris, covering all the content above.
You have a choice here on when you’d like to watch this session. You can choose to watch it at this time, immediately prior to the Q&A, combining both into a single session. Alternatively, you can watch the session at any time prior to the Q&A and allow yourself more time to develop questions, joining this workshop just for the Q&A.
A live Question and Answer session, hosted by BU Engagement Officer Adam Morris, providing an opportunity for you to ask your questions on public engagement with research and to hear from other attendees.
Research Development and Support (RDS) run induction sessions for all new starters and those who want a refresher in research. We recently revamped these so that we could have more interactive conversation on the induction day. In order to do this, we created a series of videos, which were sent to attendees three weeks’ beforehand.
The call closes on Friday 11 June 2021.
The festival offers a fascinating insight into some of the country’s leading social science research and how it influences our social, economic and political lives – both now and in the future. The 
Bournemouth University is an official festival partner and will run several events as part of the festival. Applicants should apply directly to BU’s Public Engagement team, NOT to the ESRC.
World Drowning Prevention Day at BU
Contribute to the HE-BCI survey by sharing your involvement in BU’s social, community & cultural events
MaGPIE Publishes Collaborative Paper in the IRRC
Conversation article: Five ways to keep teenagers safe by the water
MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships 2025 Call
ERC Advanced Grant 2025 Webinar
Horizon Europe Work Programme 2025 Published
Horizon Europe 2025 Work Programme pre-Published
Update on UKRO services
European research project exploring use of ‘virtual twins’ to better manage metabolic associated fatty liver disease