BU Research Blog

/ Full archive

7 January 2020

New Resolutions for Researching

There are some great opportunities coming up this month to enhance your research skills.

Writing Academy – Tuesday 14th – Thursday 16th January

This popular training event will enable you to develop the skills required to improve the quantity and quality of your publications and to develop a publication strategy which best represents you as an academic. Taking place offsite in Bournemouth, this comprises two days in-depth training followed by a supported writing day.

Writing Day – Systematic And Scoping Reviews – Monday 27th January

Systematic and scoping reviews are a great way of publishing quality publications. They are highly valued as REF submissions, especially, but not only, in the health field. One of the most important aspects for a systematic review is to create an effective and professional search strategy. This session will provide information on effective search strategies and advice on writing scoping and systematic reviews from academics with experience in this field.

Introduction to Impact – Wednesday 29th January

This workshop will explain what research impact is, why it matters, and how to build impact into your research from the beginning of a project.

Environment Narrative Writing Day – Friday 31st January

For those who are currently writing their environment narratives for REF submission.

Even more great research training opportunities from the RKEDF can be found on the event calendar.

6 January 2020

Having Problems with Home Deliveries? Please complete our Campus Delivery Survey

jdickinson

Research indicates there is a high carbon footprint associated with missed parcel deliveries to the home due to repeat courier visits and personal mileage to collect parcels. An innovative solution is work place delivery where a work place reception receives parcels and a small payment for this service. At large organisations, like a University, this could significantly reduce van mileage and be economically viable. Our study will explore views on this option and use data from a questionnaire to analyse business models to understand financial viability and savings in greenhouse gas emissions.

The research is being undertaken by Bournemouth University and University of Southampton as part of a project funded by Southampton City Council (SCC) and has the support of Neil Smith (BU Sustainability Manager).

You can take the survey by clicking on this link: https://www.isurvey.soton.ac.uk/34845

The questionnaire is completely confidential and will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Once you fully complete the survey, if you provide your contact email address, you will be entered into the prize draw to win one of ten £25 on-line shopping vouchers.

More information can be found if you click on the survey link, alternatively contact Professor Janet Dickinson (jdickinson@bournemouth.ac.uk)

6 January 2020

New Publication: Intersectionality as a hate crime research framework

BRIAN, Fusion, open access Jane Healy

Christmas came early for Jane Healy as her publication “Thinking outside the box: Intersectionality as a hate crime research framework” was published on 19 December in the conference journal for the British Society of Criminology. Jane’s article was based on her paper presentation at last summer’s BSC annual international conference which was held at the University of Lincoln.

The conference theme was ‘Public Criminologies’ and the article draws upon Jane’s previous PhD research, her ongoing work on hate crime in the Dorset community and her undergraduate teaching for sociology and criminology students on intersectional criminology; demonstrating Fusion in action!

The article challenges the current single-strand approach to hate crime in the UK and uses case study examples to illustrate how applying intersectional analysis to hate crimes contributes to a greater understanding of the nature of victims’ experiences. This comes at a time when the Law Commission is reviewing current hate crime legislation which she argues is hierarchical and fails to provide equal protection across hate crime strands.

The full article is available Open Access at: https://www.britsoccrim.org/pbcc2019/

Further findings from Jane’s PhD are discussed in an article published by Disability & Society in June last year, entitled “‘It spreads like a creeping disease’: experiences of victims of disability hate crime in austerity Britain” which is available here:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09687599.2019.1624151

Dr Jane Healy is Deputy Head of the Department of Social Sciences and Social Work, in the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences.

6 January 2020

Community-Based Research Event – register your interest

Knowledge Exchange, Training Suzy Wignall

An exciting opportunity to attend a workshop, please see below for further details –

‘A team from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) are working on a project looking at how we recruit research study participants from commercial High Street health care providers (e.g. Boots, SpecSavers etc), or organisations that support health in some way (e.g. gyms, slimming clubs etc).

The project is titled Community-Based Research and we are looking to answer two specific questions:

How can people with known health issues being seen only ‘on the high street’ access research?
How can people with known health risk factors, who are pre-disease diagnosis, access research?

These two groups could miss out on research opportunities currently because they don’t come into the standard health system until they are either considered to be too severe for High Street treatment (in the case of group 1) or they already have a health problem (in the case of group 2). We are looking to develop a process by which we can actively recruit participants at scale for trials before they need to access the health service, thus enabling better recruitment of milder disease and pre-disease phenotypes. We are aware that research is happening in these two groups and would like to pull together researchers who have this experience in order to learn from their successes and challenges.

To support this ETI we are running a workshop on January 31st, 10.30-3.30, at The Wesley Euston Hotel & Conference Venue, London, which will bring together the research community to discuss:

a) Examples of how we currently recruit from these settings, identifying successes and challenges

b) Based on these, identifying the key elements of a recruitment strategy that the Clinical Research Network could use

We would like to invite researchers to attend if this would be of interest. Please could nominated representatives complete this Eventbrite registration page (https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/nihr-crn-community-based-research-event-tickets-83954384825) including indicating which Specialty they are representing.’

6 January 2020

BU signs San Francisco Declaration of Research Assessment

Guidance, Publishing, Research assessment sastringer

We’re pleased to announce BU has signed up to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which recognises the need to improve the ways in which the outputs of research are evaluated.

Vice-Chancellor Professor John Vinney recently signed DORA on behalf of BU and said:

“At BU we value research as an important part of Fusion, in which we bring together excellent education, research and engagement with industry and professional practice.

“Our signature of DORA supports our commitment in our BU2025 strategic plan to inclusivity, and to building a vibrant learning community. “

The declaration was developed in 2012 and by signing it, BU is committing to supporting and promoting the responsible use of metrics and quantitative indicators of research.

DORA’s ultimate aim is to promote real change in research assessment. One of the keys to this is the development of robust and time-efficient ways of evaluating research and researchers that don’t rely on journal impact factors. As a result, they look to share and promote examples of good practice in research assessment, including approaches to funding and fellowships, hiring and promotion and awarding prizes that emphasise the research itself and not where it’s published.

To find out more about the declaration, please head to the DORA website.

6 January 2020

HE Policy Update for the w/e 3rd January 2020

Student Engagement jforster

The end of 2019 saw a flurry of announcements and planning documents as the government issued detailed notes on the Queen’s Speech, building on their manifesto commitments, and the Office for Students issued a detailed annual review with an accompanying blog giving some ideas about what is coming up next.

If you missed our policy update on 20^th December which covers these things in quite a lot of detail, you can read it here.

Focus on drop-out rates

One thing that was trailed in the OfS review and accompanying blog was a concern about continuation and completion rates. This is of course not new, continuation is a metric in the TEF and this is an area of focus in Access and Participation Plans across the sector.

From Research Professional:

Universities minister Chris Skidmore has said institutions should be held “individually responsible” for a surge in students abandoning their studies. Skidmore said it was “essential” that universities improve their dropout rates and called for universities to provide better support for students once they have enrolled on courses.
His comments on 3 January came as an analysis by the Press Association of the Higher Education Statistics Agency data found around two-thirds of UK universities saw an increase in their dropout rates between 2011-12 and 2016-17.
“Universities need to focus not just on getting students through the door, but making sure they complete their course successfully,” said Skidmore. “It’s essential that dropout rates are reduced. We cannot afford to see this level of wasted talent.”
But he said each university and even individual courses should be held “individually accountable for how many students are successfully obtaining a degree” so that it can be transparent where there are “real problems” with dropout rates.
In March 2019, former education minister Damian Hinds told universities that high dropout rates could make people think they are only interested in “bums on seats”rather than supporting students. He also promised that the Office for Students would pressure universities to reduce non-continuation rates and would take action if improvements were not made.
Commenting on the Press Association analysis, vice-chancellors’ body Universities UK said many universities have plans to support students once they at university, including the access and participation plans English universities must submit to the Office for Students.
“Universities are committed to widening access to higher education and ensuring students from all backgrounds can succeed and progress,” a UUK spokeswoman said. “However, it is clear that non-continuation is still an issue and institutions must continue to work to support students to progress and succeed at university.”

Headlines have been highly critical of the sector. We have not been able to access the analysis itself, but the news outlets are mostly reporting the same data: Daily Mail: Abertay University in Dundee had the largest increase, from 3.5 per cent to 12.1 per cent. In England, Bedfordshire University saw the biggest rise, from 8.3 per cent to 15.2 per cent. Seven institutions had a rise of more than five percentage points, while 19 had an increase of more than three percentage points.

Student Loans overhaul

The BBC reported on 30^thDecember that the SLC would be modernising repayment information with a new online service in 2020.

A new online repayment service will launch in 2020, offering graduates more up-to-date balance information, the Department for Education said. Education Secretary Gavin Williamson said the changes would make it easier for students to “understand their balance” and “manage their loan”.
To prevent overpayments, the government is also urging graduates to switch from salary deductions to direct debit towards the end of their loan.
Universities minister Chris Skidmore said: “With more and more people enjoying the benefits of a university education, it’s only right that graduates have easy access to the information they need about repaying their student loan. “I urge all graduates to use this new service and to join the direct debit scheme as they approach the end of their loan to ensure a smooth end and not repay more than they should.”
An SLC online repayment website does currently exist, but the new repayment service will have more up-to-date information than graduates are currently able to access, the Department for Education said.

You can read more on the DfE website here

Brexit – it’s not over until it’s over

Parliament passed the second reading of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill just before Christmas with a majority of 124. It will be back in front of Parliament on 7, 8 and 9^th January. The BBC have helpfully summarised it for us, and also what has changed since the Theresa May version (which was never actually published):

What does the WAB actually cover? Among other things:

It sets out exactly how the UK will make “divorce bill” payments to the EU for years to come
It repeals the European Communities Act, which took the UK into the EU, but then reinstates it immediately until the end of 2020 when the transition period ends
It contains language on how the new protocol on Ireland – setting up what amounts to a customs and regulatory border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain – will work in practice
It sets out areas in which the European Court of Justice still plays a role in the UK, and makes the withdrawal agreement in some respects “supreme” over other areas of UK law
One of those areas may be in the arbitration procedure for disputes about the withdrawal agreement. The bill introduces a duty for the government to report on this
It prohibits any extension to the transition period beyond the end of 2020, even if a free trade deal isn’t ready in time
In the section on citizens’ rights it sets up an independent monitoring authority (IMA) with which EU nationals in the UK can lodge any complaints about the way the government treats them
In several policy areas, particularly in Northern Ireland, the bill gives ministers a lot of power to change the law (through secondary legislation) without MPs getting to vote
It introduces a duty for the government to report on its use of the arbitration procedure for disputes about the withdrawal agreement

What’s been changed? A number of clauses in the previous version of the bill have been removed. They include:

The possibility of an extension to the transition period and the procedures around that. The bill now prohibits ministers asking for an extension.
Workers’ rights protections – the government says these will now be part of a separate bill.
Checks and balances that MPs were offered as an inducement to pass the old bill in October. For example, the requirement for the government’s negotiating position on the future relationship with the EU to be approved by Parliament has gone. And the government’s position no longer needs to be in line with the political declaration – the non-legally binding document that accompanied the withdrawal agreement and sets out aspirations for the future relationship.
A clause on child refugees. The bill removes the requirement, introduced by Lord Dubs,to agree a deal that if an unaccompanied child claims international protection in the EU, they may come to the UK if they have relatives living in the country. The new bill only requires a government minister to make a statement setting out policy on the subject within two months. Between 2016 and 2018, 426 unaccompanied children came to the UK in this way.

Given that all the Conservative Party candidates had to sign up to supporting it, it is very unlikely to fail.

But because some of you might be missing the Parliamentary “fun and games” of 2019, we thought we would bring you the latest list of amendments – it’s 42 pages long so far and likely to grow again by Tuesday. Of course, which ones are debated are partly down to the (new) Speaker as we all learned last year. not surprisingly some of them relate to the things that have been removed:

Quite a few relate to sorting out the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol and related issues– described by some as a “border down the North Sea” although before the holiday the PM was still denying that there would be checks or paperwork between the UK and NI.
Some relate to an extension of the implementation period – e.g. must extend if a deal is not reached by a date in June unless the House agree otherwise (one says by 1^st June, one says by 15^thand they attach different conditions. One has a security partnership as well as a trade deal.
A weird one saying that Big Ben will ring when the UK leaves the EU.
Quite a few amendments about EU citizens’ rights including for unaccompanied children
Some trying to restrict the power of the government to make regulations under the new law, e.g. on human rights or tax, or devolved government
Some relate to Parliamentary sovereignty over the future relationship with the EU. There is also one about “non-regression from EU standards”, one about mutual recognition and standards and one about a “level playing field”.
There is one that requires the devolved governments to approve the Act before it can come into force and two requiring the House to endorse economic impact assessments of the measures under the Bill before they are implemented.
There is one about workers’ rights
There is one about participation in the European Medicines regulatory network, one about Euratom, one about a security partnership.
There are three about a customs union and a single market
There is an unusual one about “probity of the Ministers of the Crown” requiring Ministers to make a personal declaration that they have complied with the 7 Nolan Principles of Public Life in relation to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. There is also one about a public inquiry into the events leading up to withdrawal and one about an independent review of the impact of withdrawal.
There is one about Erasmus+ being a negotiating objective

The problems with apprenticeships

The BBC has a story about “fake” apprenticeships. They aren’t actually fake – just alleged to be not doing what they were intended for – which the report writers define as courses that “relate to helping young people get started in a skilled job or occupation”.

Half of apprenticeship courses in England have been accused of being “fake” by an education think tank.

The EDSK report says the apprenticeship levy – paid by big employers – is being used on low-skilled jobs or relabelling existing posts, rather than training.
Tom Richmond, the think tank’s director, said the apprenticeship scheme was “descending into farce”.
But a Department for Education spokeswoman defended apprenticeships as becoming “better quality”.
The apprenticeship levy is paid by large employers, who contribute 0.5% of their salary bill into the training fund.
But since 2017, the report claims £1.2bn from the levy has been spent on jobs “offering minimal training and low wages” or on “rebadging” jobs already offered by employers as apprenticeships.
In its first full year of operation, the levy raised £2.7bn and this is expected to rise to £3.4bn by 2023-24.
Apprenticeship spending is too often used on “existing adult workers instead of supporting young people into the workplace”, the report warns.
The report also criticises £448m spent on apprenticeships aimed at degree and postgraduate level.

You can read the report here.

The most costly higher-level apprenticeship has been the ‘Accountancy / Taxation Professional’ course at Level 7 (equivalent to a Master’s degree), which has used £174 million of levy funding since 2017 by claiming to cover roles as diverse as Financial Accountants, Management Accountants, Tax Accountants, Tax Advisers, Tax Specialists, External Auditors, Internal Auditors, Financial Analysts, Management Consultants, Forensic Accountants and Business Advisors. For a single ‘apprenticeship’ to cover such a breadth of respected and wellpaid jobs is questionable, to say the least.
In addition, the ‘Senior Leader apprenticeship’ – aimed at CEOs, CFOs, senior military officers and Heads of Department among others – can include an MBA, which explains why it has quickly become a major source of revenue for business schools and consumed over £45 million in just two years.
Inappropriate rebadging of training courses also extends beyond the world of business and finance. The ‘Academic Professional apprenticeship’ – designed by 23 Higher Education (HE) institutions including the University of Oxford, the University of Durham and Imperial College London – is an overt attempt by these organisations to relabel their university academics as ‘apprentices’ to use up the university’s own levy contributions. The fact that you typically need a PhD to be accepted onto this levy-funded training course confirms that it bears no relation whatsoever to any genuine apprenticeship.

The report also makes some recommendations:

INTRODUCING A WORLD-CLASS DEFINITION OF AN ‘APPRENTICESHIP’

1: The Department for Education should introduce a new definition of an ‘apprenticeship’ that is benchmarked against the best apprenticeship systems in the world.
2: The Department for Education should restrict the use of the term ‘apprenticeship’ to training at Level 3 only.

SETTING A NEW VISION AND OBJECTIVE FOR THE LEVY

3: The apprenticeship levy should be renamed the ‘Technical and Professional Education Levy’ and all work-based learning from Level 4 to Level 7 should be renamed ‘Technical and Professional Education’ (TPE).
4: Bachelor’s degrees and Master’s-level courses that have been labelled as ‘apprenticeships’ should be excluded from the scope of the TPE levy.
5: The existing co-payment rate of 5 per cent for apprenticeships should be replaced by a tiered co-payment rate for all TPE programmes from Levels 3 to 6, starting at 0% co-payment for apprenticeships at Level 3 up to a 75% co-payment for Level 6 programmes.

REVISING THE FUNDING AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

6: The current system of 30 ‘funding bands’ from £1,500 to £27,000 should be replaced by five ‘price groups’ for apprenticeships at Level 3 and higher-level TPE programmes.
7: The 10 per cent ‘top up’ invested by government in the HMRC digital accounts of levy-paying employers should be withdrawn.
8: Ofsted should be made the sole regulator for any apprenticeships and technical and professional education funded by the new TPE levy, including provision in universities.

Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

6 January 2020

The last Christmas present

international, Publishing, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

“On the twelfth day of Christmas ….” the editor of the Journal of Health Research Ms Sunanta Wongchalee informed us that our paper ‘Silicone use in Nepali transgender women: The hazards of beauty’ has been accepted for publication [1]. That is nice belated Christmas present to receive on January 6th and a good start of the New Year. The paper is written by FHSS’s Dr. Pramod Regmi and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen with Sanjeev Raj Neupane in Nepal. This is the second paper from this unique study on transgender women in Nepal, the first one was published last year in BMJ Open [2].

References:

Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E.,, Neupane, S. (2020) Silicone use in Nepali transgender women: The hazards of beauty, Journal of Health Research (accepted)
Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E., Neupane, S., Marahatta, S. (2019) Hormone use among Nepali transgender women: a qualitative study, BMJ Open 9: e030464. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030464.

4 January 2020

Nepal’s migrant workers & risk at the workplace

international, PG research, Publishing, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

For nearly a decade BU researchers have published widely about the hazards and risk of Nepali migrant workers in Asia and the Middle East [1-9]. Despite the fact that most migrant workers end up in semi-skilled and unskilled jobs in their host countries, only a minority report poor working environments. For example, in Pratik Adhikary’s PhD study in FHSS only just over a fifth of migrant workers reported that their work environment in the Middle East or Malaysia was poor or very poor [4]. This relatively high level of satisfaction appears to seems contradict reports in local media on the risks associated with Nepali migrants working abroad, especially focusing on the football world cup in Qatar [7], official reports that many hundreds of bodies of dead Nepali migrants return home every year [10], and the fact that many of these Nepali migrant workers end up doing the jobs the local populations finds too dirty, dangerous and demeaning (colloquially referred to as 3D-jobs). Why do so many who travel abroad take to do risky, dirty and otherwise undesirable jobs, but still assess their working environment as not too bad?

More theoretical papers on the drivers of migration have referred to many interconnected factors and links [11-12]. Local drivers in Nepal include poverty, lack of employment opportunities, having a history of work-related migration, a growing culture of migration (i.e. it becomes more or less an expectation) and many more. One local element that is perhaps too easily ignored is that many Nepali migrant workers would have ended up in dirty, dangerous and demeaning jobs at home too. And the risk, on for example building sites in Nepal might be even greater than that in Qatar or elsewhere in the Middle East as some of the photos below illustrate. These photos of an accident involving an external building lift were taken today on a building site in Kathmandu.

References:

Adhikary P., Keen S., van Teijlingen E. (2011) Health Issues among Nepalese migrant workers in Middle East. Health Science Journal 5: 169-75. www.hsj.gr/volume5/issue3/532.pdf
Adhikary, P, Sheppard, Z., Keen, S., van Teijlingen, E. (2017) Risky work: accidents among Nepalese migrant workers in Malaysia, Qatar & Saudi Arabia, 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). https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v9i3.25805
Adhikary P, Sheppard, Z., Keen S., van Teijlingen E. (2018) Health and well-being of Nepalese migrant workers abroad, International Journal of Migration, Health & Social Care 14(1): 96-105. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMHSC-12-2015-0052
Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E., Mahato, P., Aryal, N., Jadhav, N., Simkhada, P., Zahiruddin, Q.S., Gaidhane, A. (2019) The Health of Nepali Migrants in India: A Qualitative Study of Lifestyles and Risks. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 (19). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193655
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), 788-791. https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v9i3.25805
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
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.
Regmi, P., Aryal, N., van Teijlingen, E., Adhikary, P. (2019) Nepali migrant workers and the need for pre-departure training on mental health: a qualitative study, Journal of Immigrant & Minority Health https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10903-019-00960-z.pdf
Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of Nepal. (2018) Labour migration for employment: a status report for Nepal: 2015/2016 – 2016/2017. In. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Labour and Employment.
Van Hear, N., Bakewell, O., Long. K. (2018) Push-pull plus: reconsidering the drivers of migration, Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies, 44:6, 927-944, DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2017.1384135
Iqbal, M., Gusman, Y. (2015) Pull and Push Factors of Indonesian women migrant workers from Indramayu (West Java) to work abroad. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(5): 167 https://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/view/7893

3 January 2020

Hear about NIHR Wessex Applied Research Collaboration – 13th January 09:30 to 12:00

Vanora Hundley

Applied Health and Care research is essential in our region if we are to improve the care and operation of our health and care systems.

Professor Alison Richardson, Director of the NIHR Wessex Applied Research Collaboration (ARC), will be talking about the newly formed ARC Wessex, which is working across the region with its partner organisations to bring the best research into practice.

ARC Wessex aims to address the immediate issues facing the health and social care system. The research programme focuses on four areas:

Ageing & Dementia.
Healthy Communities.
Long Term Conditions
Workforce and Health Systems.

There are a number of initial projects underway – for further information see our website.

This event is open to everyone across Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight and South Wiltshire – Our Wessex community. Please book your place: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/nihr-arc-wessex-skills-and-implementation-in-health-and-care-research-tickets-86901836733

2 January 2020

Research Professional – all you need to know

Funding opportunities Jo Garrad

Every BU academic has a Research Professional account which delivers weekly emails detailing funding opportunities in their broad subject area. To really make the most of your Research Professional account, you should tailor it further by establishing additional alerts based on your specific area of expertise. The Funding Development Team Officers can assist you with this, if required.

Research Professional have created several guides to help introduce users to Research Professional. These can be downloaded here.

Quick Start Guide: Explains to users their first steps with the website, from creating an account to searching for content and setting up email alerts, all in the space of a single page.

User Guide: More detailed information covering all the key aspects of using Research Professional.

Administrator Guide: A detailed description of the administrator functionality.

In addition to the above, there are a set of 2-3 minute videos online, designed to take a user through all the key features of Research Professional. To access the videos, please use the following link: http://www.youtube.com/researchprofessional

Research Professional are running a series of online training broadcasts aimed at introducing users to the basics of creating and configuring their accounts on Research Professional. They are holding monthly sessions, covering everything you need to get started with Research Professional. The broadcast sessions will run for no more than 60 minutes, with the opportunity to ask questions via text chat. Each session will cover:

Self registration and logging in
Building searches
Setting personalised alerts
Saving and bookmarking items
Subscribing to news alerts
Configuring your personal profile

Each session will run between 10.00am and 11.00am (UK) on the fourth Tuesday of each month. You can register here for your preferred date:

These are free and comprehensive training sessions and so this is a good opportunity to get to grips with how Research Professional can work for you.

Have you noticed the pink box on the BU Research Blog homepage?

By clicking on this box, on the left of the Research Blog home page just under the text ‘Funding Opportunities‘, you access a Research Professional real-time search of the calls announced by the Major UK Funders. Use this feature to stay up to date with funding calls. Please note that you will have to be on campus or connecting to your desktop via our VPN to fully access this service.

31 December 2019

Final BU publication of 2019?

international, open access, Publishing, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

The Nepal Journal of Epidemiology published its final edition of 2019 today, on the final day of the year. This issue included an editorial co-authored by BU academics and BU Visiting Faculty. The editorial ‘Vaping and e-cigarettes: A public health warning or a health promotion tool?’ [1] addresses the topical public health question of what to make of vaping. On the one hand, vaping is generally regarded as less harmful than smoking tobacco, but on the other hand, it can be a gateway drug to cigarettes and the process of vaping a range of chemicals it in itself not harmless.

The paper has been written by two academics based in CMMPH (Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health), Dr. Preeti Mahato and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen and FHSS Visiting Faulty members Prof. Padam Simkhada (based at the University of Huddersfield) and Dr. Brijesh Sathian (based at Trauma Surgery,in Hamad General Hospital, Doha, Qatar) in collaboration with e-cigarette user Mr. Cameron van Teijlingen (based in Dorset) and Dr. Mohammad Asim (based at Trauma Surgery,in Hamad General Hospital, Doha, Qatar). The Nepal Journal of Epidemiology is Open Access and therefore freely accessible across the globe.

Reference:

van Teijlingen, E., Mahato, P., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, C., Asim, M., & Sathian, B. (2019). Vaping and e-cigarettes: A public health warning or a health promotion tool? Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, 9(4), 792-794. https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v9i4.26960

23 December 2019

BU academics publish election analysis report within 10 days of the result

open access, Public engagement, Publishing Daniel Jackson

And just in time for Christmas!

UK Election Analysis 2019: Media, Voters and the Campaign, edited by Daniel Jackson, Einar Thorsen, Darren Lilleker and Nathalie Weidhase.

Featuring 85 contributions from over 100 leading academics and emerging scholars, this free publication captures the immediate thoughts, reflections and early research insights on the 2019 UK General Election from the cutting edge of media and politics research.

Published just 10 days after the election, these contributions are short and accessible. Authors provide authoritative analysis of the campaign, including research findings or new theoretical insights; to bring readers original ways of understanding the election and its consequences. Contributions also bring a rich range of disciplinary influences, from political science to cultural studies, journalism studies to geography.

The publication is available as a free downloadable PDF, as a website and as a paperback report.

Website URL: http://www.electionanalysis.uk

Direct PDF download: http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/33165/7/UKElectionAnalysis2019_Jackson-Thorsen-Lilleker-and-Weidhase_v1.pdf

Thanks to all of our contributors and production staff who helped make the quick turnaround possible. We hope it makes for a vibrant and engaging read!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Truth, Lies and Civic Culture

1. Delusions of democracy
Natalie Fenton
2. What’s the election communication system like now?
Jay Blumler
3. The rules of the campaign found wanting
Alan Renwick
4. Sorry, not sorry: hubris, hate and the politics of shame
Karen Ross
5. The “coarsening” of campaigns
Dan Stevens, Susan Banducci, Laszlo Horvath and André Krouwel
6. Online hate and the “nasty” election
Helen Margetts and Bertie Vidgen
7. GE2019 was not a Brexit election: trust and credibility, anti-politics and populism
Matt Flinders
8. The online public shaming of political candidates in the 2019 General Election
Mark Wheeler
9. Strategic lying: the new game in town
Ivor Gaber
10. Fact-checkers’ attempts to check rhetorical slogans and misinformation
Jen Birks
11. The election where British fourth estate journalism moved closer to extinction
Aeron Davis
12. Rethinking impartiality in an age of political disinformation
Stephen Cushion
13. Fake news, emotions, and social media
Karin Wahl Jorgensen
14. Unleashing optimism in an age of anxiety
Candida Yates

Voters, Polls and Results

15. Boris’s missing women
Jessica Smith
16. An expected surprise? An evaluation of polls and seat forecasts during the campaign.
Matt Wall and Jack Tudor
17. Unprecedented interest or more of the same? Turnout in the 2019 election
Ron Johnston and Charles Pattie
18. Cartographic perspectives of the 2019 General Election
Benjamin Hennig
19. Tactical voting advice sites
Chris Hanretty
20. Another election, another disappointment: Young people vote left and are left behind at GE2019
James Sloam and Matt Henn
21. Divided we fall: Was Nigel Farage the kingmaker of the Johnson victory?
Pippa Norris

The Nations

22. A renewed electoral pitch for independence in Wales
Siim Trumm
23. “It’s the constitution, eejit”: Scotland and the agenda wars
Michael Higgins
24. Gender takes to the shade in Scotland
Fiona McKay
25. The election in Northern Ireland: A route back to Stormont?
Jonathan Tonge
26. ‘Remain alliance’ win the BBC Northern Ireland Leaders’ debate (online at least)
Paul Reilly

Parties and the Campaign

27. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something EU
Russell Foster
28. ‘Weak and wobbly’ to ‘get Brexit done’: 2019 and Conservative campaigns
Anthony Ridge-Newman
29. Conservative victories in Labour heartlands in the 2019 General Election
Peter Reeves
30. Corbyn and Johnson’s strategic narratives on the campaign trail
Pawel Surowiec, Victoria Copeland and Nathan Olsen
31. More Blimp, less Gandhi: the Corbyn problem
Darren Lilleker
32. The Media and the Manifestos: why 2019 wasn’t 2017 redux for the Labour party
Mike Berry
33. Down a slippery rope… is Britain joining the global trends towards right-wing populism?
Mona Moufahim
34. The Brexit Party’s impact – if any
Pete Dorey
35. Farage: Losing the battle to win the war
Pippa Norris
36. Party election broadcasts … Actually?
Vincent Campbell
37. GE 2019: lessons for political branding
Jenny Lloyd
38. The postmodern election
Barry Richards

Policy and Strategy

39. The uses and abuses of the left-right distinction in the campaign
Jonathan Dean
40. Entitlement and incoherence: Centrist ‘bollocks’
Matthew Johnson
41. Brexit doesn’t mean Brexit, but the pursuit of power
Thom Brooks
42. What ever happened to euroscepticism?
Simon Usherwood
43. Immigration in the 2019 General Election Campaign
Kerry Moore
44. Immigration in party manifestos. Threat or resource?
Elena-Alina Dolea
45. Foreign policy in the 2019 election
Victoria Honeyman
46. Post-Brexit ‘Global Britain’ as the theatre of the New Cold War
Roman Gerodimos
47. The Rorschach Election: How the US narrates UK politics
Victor Pickard
48. If everyone has a mandate…surely nobody has a mandate?
Mark Shephard
49. The climate election that wasn’t
David McQueen
50. Is this a climate election (yet)?
Jenny Alexander
51. Movement-led electoral communication: Extinction Rebellion action and party policy in the media
Abi Rhodes

The Digital Campaign

52. Digital campaign regulation: more urgent than ever?
Kate Dommett and Sam Power
53. Did the Conservatives embrace social media in 2019?
Richard Fletcher
54. #GE2019 – Labour owns the Tories on Instagram, the latest digital battlefield
Matt Walsh
55. Spot the difference: how Nicola Sturgeon and Jo Swinson self-represented on Twitter
Sally Osei-Appiah
56. “Go back to your student politics”? Momentum, the digital campaign, and what comes next
James Dennis and Susana Sampaiao Dias
57. Taking the Tube
Alec Charles
58. The politics of deletion in social media campaigns
Marco Bastos
59. “Behind the curtain of the targeting machine” – Political parties A/B testing in action
Tristan Hotham
60. Against opacity, outrage & deception in digital political campaigning
Vian Bakir and Andrew McStay
61. The explosion of the public sphere
Martin Moore and Gordon Ramsay
62. Big chickens, dumbfakes, squirrel killers: was 2019 the election where ‘shitposing’ went mainstream?
Rosalynd Southern

News and Journalism

63. Time to fix our TV debates
Nick Anstead
64. What was all that about, then? The media agenda in the 2019 General Election
David Deacon et al
65. Pluralism or partisanship? Calibrating punditry on BBC2’s Politics Live
James Morrison
66. Hero and villain: the media’s role in identity management
Jagon Chichon
67. Traditional majoritarian conceptions of UK politics pose a dilemma for the media in elections
Louise Thompson
68. #GE2019: A tale of two elections?
Aljosha Karim Schapals
69. Boxing clever: negotiating gender in campaign coverage during the 2019 General Election
Emily Harmer
70. Press distortion of public opinion polling: what can, or should, be done?
Steve Barnett
71. The final verdict: patterns of press partisanship
Dominic Wring and David Deacon
72. The class war election
Des Freedman
73. An uncertain future for alternative online media?
Declan McDowell-Naylor and Richard Thomas

Personality politics and Pop Culture

74. Tune in, turn away, drop out: Emotionality and the decision not to stand
Beth Johnson and Katy Parry
75. Last fan standing: Jeremy Corbyn supporters in the 2019 General Election
Cornel Sandvoss
76. Linguistic style in the Johnson vs Corbyn televised debates of the 2019 General Election campaign
Sylvia Shaw
77. Order! Order! The Speaker, celebrity politics and ritual performance
Marcel Broersma
78. What is Boris Johnson?
John Street
79. Creating Boris: Nigel Farage and the 2019 election
Neil Ewen
80. Boris the clown – the effective performance of incompetence
Lone Sorensen
81. Political humour and the problem of taking Boris seriously
Andrew Glencross
82. Joking: uses and abuses of humour in the election campaign
Sophie Quirk, Tom Sharkey and Ed Wilson
83. The problem with satirising the election
Allaina Kilby
84. Sounding Off: music and musicians’ interventions in the 2019 election campaign
Adam Behr
85. Stormzy, status, and the serious business of social media spats
Ellen Watts

21 December 2019

New Year’s Eve Celebrations Without the Fizz? New Publication in BULR by Martine Hardwick

Fusion themes, open access, PG research, REF Subjects, student research cippm

Martine Hardwick, Lecturer in Law and PhD Candidate in the Department of Humanities and Law, has published a timely commentary in the Bournemouth University Law Review looking ahead to a change in the law on 31 December 2019. On this date, opposite sex couples will finally be able to register their civil partnerships – which until now has been reserved for same sex couples.

However, this change in the law raises important questions for cohabiting couples. Despite longing for more protection and fairness from the law, co-habiting couples will not be presented with the opportunity as heterosexual couples to celebrate on New Year’s Eve. Instead, they will still be bound by the strict rules of formation and dissolution which mirror those of marriage.

Questioning whether the UK has missed an opportunity to provide more rights for cohabiting couples and highlighting a solution drawn from France in the form of Pacte Civil de Solidarité (PACS), Martine argues that learning lessons from the French legal system has to be the way forward in giving cohabitants protection while respecting their autonomy.

You can read Martine Hardwick’s full article here.

20 December 2019

HE Policy Update for the w/e 20th December 2019

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

It’s our last update until the New Year – we give you the Queen’s speech (not that one, the one at the State opening) and the OfS annual review, to get you ready for what will be coming in the New Year. At the time of writing MPs are expected to pass the second reading of the EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill, paving the way for the more detailed third reading stage in January.

Happy Christmas and a happy new year to all our readers, and thank you for your patience in what has been a very interesting year!

Queen’s speech (again)

You can read the Queen’s Speech here along with the PM’s introduction and briefing notes about all the legislation etc. The Executive Summary in this briefing document sets out the legislative programme clearly.

This Queen’s Speech will deliver Brexit on 31 January and allow the Government to deliver on people’s priorities and unleash the country’s potential. The Government’s first priority is to deliver Brexit on 31 January and to negotiate an ambitious free trade agreement with the EU that benefits the whole country This Queen’s Speech sets out how we will seize the opportunities created by Brexit:

The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill will ratify the deal secured by the Government in October, delivering Brexit.
The Agriculture Bill will reform UK agriculture by improving environmental protections and strengthening transparency and fairness in the supply chain.
The Fisheries Bill will enable us to reclaim control over our waters, ensuring the sustainability of our marine life and environment.
The Trade Bill will establish the Trade Remedies Authority to protect UK industry from unfair trading practices.
We will end free movement and pave the way for a modern, fairer points based immigration system.

You will remember that “The Home Secretary has commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee (the MAC) to consider points-based systems, including the Australian immigration system and other international comparators. The MAC is due to report in January 2020.”

And this from the more detailed briefing:

Our new single system will allocate points on a range of criteria in three broad categories and it will be focused on skills and talents, not nationality:

Migrants who have received world-leading awards or otherwise demonstrated exceptional talent and sponsored entrepreneurs setting up a new business or investors.
Skilled workers who meet the criteria of the points-based system and have a job offer.
Sector-specific workers who enter on schemes for low-skilled work, youth mobility or short-term visits. These provide no route to permanent settlement and will be revised on an ongoing basis based on expert advice from the MAC.

Although it isn’t mentioned in the briefing, this was the October 2019 briefing on graduate employment rights

A Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill will provide a clear framework for cross-border resolutions for individuals, families and UK businesses involved in international legal disputes.
We will provide certainty, stability and new opportunities for the financial services sector.

The Speech sets out a number of proposals to invest in and support our public services:

Legislation will enshrine in law the largest cash settlement in the NHS’s history and we will deliver the NHS Long Term Plan in England to ensure our health service is fit for the future.
A Medicines and Medical Devices Bill will ensure that our NHS and patients can have faster access to innovative medicines, while supporting the growth of our domestic sector.
We will also pursue reforms to make the NHS safer for patients.
We will provide extra funding for social care and will urgently seek cross-party consensus for much needed long-term reform so that nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it.
We will continue work to modernise and reform the Mental Health Act to ensure people get the support they need, with a much greater say in their care.
We will increase levels of funding per pupil to ensure all children can access a high quality education.

This is from the more detailed briefing on education

The Government is giving schools a multi-billion pound boost, investing a total of ￡14 billion more over three years, on top of ￡5 billion for teacher’s pensions. Overall, that translates to ￡150 million a week. The core schools budget will be ￡7.1 billion higher in 2022-23 compared to this year.
Every school will have more money for every child and we will level up minimum per-pupil funding for secondary schools to ￡5,000, and primary schools to ￡3,750 next year, and ￡4,000 the year after.
From next year, we will legally require all local authorities to deliver the minimum per-pupil funding in their local area. And that will be an important first step towards delivering this funding directly to schools, through a single national formula, so that it is fair and equitable for every school in the country.
It is vital we ensure that the pay offer for teachers is positioned at the top of the graduate labour market – ensuring we recruit and retain a world class profession – and that is why we have announced plans to significantly raise starting pay to ￡30,000 nationally by September 2022.
The Government will also continue to expand the successful free schools programme, promoting choice, innovation and higher standards to kick-start wider improvement.
The Government wants to bring renewed focus to further and technical education, and will ensure our post-16 education system enables young people and adults to gain the skills required for success and to help the economy.
This means an extra ￡400 million for 16-19 year-old education next year, an increase of 7 per cent overall in 16-19 year-old funding and the biggest injection of new money in a single year since 2010.
There will also be additional investment in T Levels, supporting continued preparation for these courses with the first three starting from September 2020.
The Government will invest an additional ￡3 billion over the course of this Parliament to support the creation of a ‘National Skills Fund’.
The Government will invest ￡8 billion over five years in a rebuilding programme to upgrade the entire further education college estate.
The Government are also planning to establish 20 Institutes of Technology across England- unique collaborations between further education colleges, universities, and employers –– offering higher technical education and training in science, technology, engineering and maths subjects, to give people the skills they need for key sectors such as digital, construction, advanced manufacturing and engineering.
The Government is committed to making sure higher education funding reflects a sustainable model that supports high quality provision, maintaining our world-leading reputation for higher education and delivering value for money for both students and the taxpayer.
The Government will ensure that our universities are places where free speech can thrive, and will strengthen academic freedoms.
The Government wants to ensure we deliver better value for students in post- 18 education, have more options that offer the right education for each individual, and remove barriers to access for disadvantaged young people.
The Government is considering the thoughtful recommendations made in the Augar Review carefully.
The Government will boost Ofsted inspection so that parents can be confident they have the fullest picture of quality at their child’s school. We will consult on lifting the inspection exemption so that outstanding schools are inspected routinely.
To ensure children are getting an active start to life, The Government will invest in primary school PE teaching and ensure that it is being properly delivered. The Government wants to do more to help schools make good use of their sports facilities and to promote physical literacy and competitive sport.

The Speech sets out a variety of measures to support workers and families:

An Employment Bill will enhance workers’ rights, supporting flexible working, extending unpaid carers’ entitlement to leave and ensure workers keep their hard earned tips.
A Renters’ Reform Bill will enhance renters’ security and improve protections for short-term tenants by abolishing “no-fault” evictions and introducing a lifetime deposit.
To ensure residents are safe in their homes, we will bring forward measures to implement the most urgent recommendations from the first phase of the Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry. We will also publish a draft Building Safety Bill to implement the recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt’s review of building regulations.
Recognising our commitment to making the UK the safest place to be online, we will continue to develop an Online Harms Bill.
The Pension Schemes Bill will enable people to better plan their saving for later life and improve the protection of people’s pensions, strengthening the regulator’s powers to tackle irresponsible management of pension schemes.
We will reduce the cost of living, including through increases to the National Insurance threshold and the National Living Wage.

The Speech reaffirms our commitment to strengthening the criminal justice system, ensuring it keeps people safe:

A Counter Terrorism (Sentencing and Release) Bill will ensure the most serious and dangerous terrorist offenders stay in prison for longer.
A Sentencing Bill will ensure the most serious and violent offenders serve more of their sentences in custody.
A Serious Violence Bill will place a duty on public bodies to work together to identify and tackle early factors that can lead to crime and ensure the police can more easily stop and search habitual knife carriers.
A Police Powers and Protection Bill will establish a Police Covenant and ensure the police are able to fully conduct their duties by providing them with additional support and protection.
Recognising the pain felt by victims and their families when offenders refuse to disclose certain information about their crimes, the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information about Victims) Bill will require the Parole Board to take this into account – a version of “Helen’s Law”.
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill will remove unnecessary conflict during the divorce process, in which children are so often caught up, while ensuring that divorce remains a carefully considered decision.
We will re-introduce the Domestic Abuse Bill, strengthening protections for victims and providing new enforcement mechanisms.
The Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill will empower police officers to immediately arrest someone wanted for a serious crime committed in a trusted country, without having to apply to a court for a warrant first.
We will consider proposals to deal more effectively with foreign national offenders, including increasing the maximum penalty for those who return to the UK in breach of a deportation order.
We will set up a Royal Commission to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice process.

The Speech sets out how we will improve our infrastructure and level up opportunity across the country:

We will invest in public services and infrastructure while keeping borrowing and debt under control and will publish a National Instructure Strategy.
We will accelerate the delivery of fast, reliable and secure broadband networks to millions of homes, with legislation to make it easier for telecoms companies to install digital infrastructure and to ensure all new homes are built with reliable and fast internet.
The Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill, will maintain our position as a world-leader in aviation by modernising our airspace, making journeys quicker, quieter and cleaner whilst also tackling the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft (drones).
Legislation will be brought forward to ensure that minimum levels of service are maintained during transport strikes so that hard-working commuters can still get to work.
We will develop measures to ensure people can get home quickly when an airline goes bust.
In response to the Williams Review, we will publish a White Paper containing reforms that address passengers needs while providing value for the taxpayer and delivering economic benefits across the UK.
A draft National Security and Investment Bill will strengthen the Government’s powers to investigate and intervene in business transactions (takeovers and mergers) to protect national security.
To maintain the UK’s position as a global science superpower, we will boost public R&D funding, launch a comprehensive UK Space Strategy and develop proposals for a new funding agency.

The detailed note says:

To build on our world-leading excellence in science and deliver solutions to some of the world’s greatest challenges we are:

Setting out plans to significantly boost public R&D funding.
Backing a new approach to funding high-risk, high-payoff research in emerging fields of research and technology. The Government will work with industry and academics to finalise this proposal.
Introducing a new fast-track immigration scheme for the best and brightest scientists and researchers.
Reducing bureaucracy in research funding to ensure our brilliant scientists are able to spend as much time as possible creating new ideas.
Establishing a new National Space Council and launching a comprehensive UK Space Strategy.
The R&D funding plans the Government will unveil will help accelerate our ambition to reach 2.4 per cent of GDP spent on R&D by 2027. This boost in funding will allow the UK to invest strategically in cutting-edge science, while encouraging the world’s most innovative businesses to invest in the UK.
Under our new funding plans the Government will prioritise investment in industries of the future where the UK can take a commanding lead – such as life sciences, clean energy, space, design, computing, robotics and artificial intelligence. The Government will drive forward development of these technologies by investing in hubs around world-leading universities.
Some of this new R&D spending will go towards a new approach to funding emerging fields of research and technology. It will provide long term funding to support visionary high-risk, high-pay off scientific, engineering, and technology ideas, and will complement the UK’s existing world class research system.
The Government will increase the tax credit rate to 13 per cent and review what R&D-related costs qualify for tax credits, so that important investments in cloud computing and data, which boost productivity and innovation, are also incentivised.
Removing unnecessary bureaucracy in the science funding system will help ensure all UK investments have the greatest possible impact by cutting the time wasted by scientists filling out forms.
The UK’s new fast-track immigration scheme for top scientists and researchers will help significantly enhance the intellectual and knowledge base of the UK. The changes to the immigration system will:
Abolish the cap on numbers under the Tier 1 Exceptional Talent Visas;
Expand the pool of UK research institutes and universities able to endorse candidates; and
Create criteria that confer automatic endorsement, subject to immigration checks.
Under the current Tier 1 Visa system, the immigration system already:
Ensures dependents have full access to the labour market;
Removes the need to hold an offer of employment before arriving; and
Provides an accelerated path to settlement.
This new immigration scheme will support our world-leading research by ensuring that UK teams can recruit the best skills and talent from abroad. We will continue to collaborate internationally and with the EU on scientific research, including with the EU through Horizon.
The Government will unlock long-term capital in pension funds to invest in and commercialise our scientific discoveries, creating a vibrant science-based economy post-Brexit.

We will publish a White Paper to reiterate our commitment to levelling up opportunities and investment in the regions across England.
We will reform business rates to protect high streets and communities from excessive tax hikes and keep town centres vibrant. We will bring forward the next business rates revaluation and make future revaluations in England more frequent.

This Queen’s Speech deepens our commitment to safeguarding the natural environment for future generations:

Our landmark Environment Bill will protect and preserve the planet for generations to come. It will establish a new Office for Environmental Protection, increase local powers to tackle air pollution, introduce charges for specified single use plastic items, and ban exports of polluting plastic waste to non-OECD countries.
We will also continue to take steps to meet the world-leading target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
We will introduce legislation to promote and protect animal welfare, including measures to increase maximum sentences for animal cruelty, to ensure animals are recognised as sentient beings, and ban the import and export of trophies from endangered animals.

The Government will continue to work to strengthen the bonds between the different parts of the UK and to safeguard its constitution and democratic processes:

We will continue to uphold the constitutional integrity of the UK, working constructively with the devolved administrations and their legislatures to ensure our Union continues to flourish.
We will urgently pursue the restoration of the devolved power-sharing government at Stormont to ensure the people of Northern Ireland have the political leadership of their elected local representatives.
We will set up a Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission to consider the relationship between Government, Parliament and the courts and to explore whether the checks and balances in our constitution are working for everyone.
We will take forward work to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.
We will protect the integrity of our democracy and elections, tackling electoral fraud through the introduction of voter ID and banning postal vote harvesting.

The Speech confirms our determination to celebrate and support the work of our courageous armed forces and to retain and enhance the UK’s global status and reach as we leave the EU:

We will continue to invest in our Armed Forces and honour the Armed Forces Covenant.
We will continue to uphold the NATO commitment to spend at least two per cent of national income on defence.
We will legislate to bring an end to the unfair pursuit of our Armed Forces through vexatious legislation.
We will seek the prompt implementation of the Stormont House Agreement to provide both reconciliation for victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland and greater certainty for military veterans.
The Prime Minister will undertake an Integrated Defence, Security and Foreign Policy Review – the deepest review of these issues since the end of the Cold War.
We will secure ambitious new trade deals with our international partners across the world.
We will take forward our commitment to ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, divestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries.
Finally, this Government will champion Conservative values and put a strong United Kingdom front and centre in the world. We will champion the UK’s interests and uphold our values of the rule of law, freedom of expression, and the importance of human rights on the international stage. We will continue to work alongside our international partners to tackle the most pressing global challenges, including terrorism and climate change.

Research funding

We have mentioned the government’s promises on research funding above. Wonkhe have done some analysis

The ten-year science and innovation investment framework launched to much fanfare in 2004 made a similar promise, but ultimately didn’t deliver. Given 2.4 per cent is a “whole economy” target, i.e. made up of both public and private sector spending, we’d argue that what really counts this time is the pledge made by the Prime Minister during the election that a returning Conservative government would increase its annual investment in research and development to £18 billion by 2024/25.
Clearly that level of investment will need to ramp up over time to address capacity issues in the research sector: the UK will need thousands more research workers in universities, businesses and research institutes and the wider public sector.
Interestingly, the Conservatives’ costings document appears to only indicate a rise to just over £14 billion public investment in research and development by 2023/24, so these pledges will also need ongoing scrutiny. And we will need a strategic plan to deliver this level of change and that plan will need to show how the government will leverage private investment, alongside its own, to deliver on the GDP target as soon as possible.

Office for Students Annual Review

The Office for Students have issued an annual review which defends their approach to date and sets out some continuing and new frontiers for intervention in the sector. The headline lets you know what is coming: England’s universities world class, but pockets of poor provision letting students down.

Before we get stuck into the detail, there is some analysis of this and the OfS board papers from Wonkhe – Jim Dickinson on plans for student protection:

The interesting question here is what students actually expect in each of those areas, where they get those expectations from, and what happens if the expectation doesn’t match the reality.
For example – a university website that boasts ”there’s lots of support available to you… no problem is too big or no worry too small for our team of experts, and there are plenty of services so you can choose the one that’s best for you” might not be setting an appropriate expectation of its waiting lists to access these services are over a term long.
Similarly, a university boasting that “students experience an open, informal study environment with teachers and students usually on a first-name basis… a more collaborative approach, where students are respected as junior colleagues and their opinions valued and encouraged by more experienced peers” sounds great, but may be hard to access if there’s 300 people on all your modules.
A student enrolled at a university whose assessment policy says that “you will normally receive work back within three weeks” and claims “you will be allocated a supportive personal tutor” might reasonably have rights to redress if all their marks take six weeks to appear, and if they get to their final year having never met their personal tutor.
Much of this sort of stuff isn’t in contracts now, but is certainly implied in prospectuses or university policies – and what this probably points to is providers having to be much more specific about the nature, quality and level of service on offer – both to help students compare, and enable them to enforce their rights if it doesn’t materialise.

And David Kernohan on the OfS board papers – he has a whole advent calendar full of points (26) but we’ve pulled out a few

13) More publications on the way. There’ll be more guidance on value for money transparency expectations in early 2020, which may include a consultation (and thus, we guess, changes to the regulatory framework)
14) We’ll be getting the results of a survey of students and graduates about VfM views in March 2020.
15) There’s a consultation coming very soon, which may mean changes to the regulatory framework to help tackle harassment and sexual misconduct.
19) The Student panel have been getting stuck into TEF, and they reckon the purpose of TEF should be to “incentivise continuous improvement” within providers rather than to guide student choice, which tells its own story. They don’t like the current stratification of awards (Bronze can still mean bad), but they do fancy an increased number of awards to identify providers with greater precision.
20) The panel also “appreciated the level of student engagement” included within the subject-level pilot and supported “increasing the level of direct engagement and introducing more qualitative data to TEF”. There was even support for “less reliance on NSS data” as there was a feeling that “it could be gamed” and that low response rates “can lead to unreliable data which then can’t be used”.

So back to the Review. Nicola Dandridge says:

‘It is simply wrong to suggest that criticism of poor-quality provision and poor outcomes for students, when appropriate and evidenced, amounts to disloyalty that will damage the reputation of English higher education. Indeed, the reality is exactly the opposite: saying that everything is perfect in every university and college, when it plainly is not, is dishonest and corrosive, and ultimately will do more damage by undermining trust and confidence.
‘More to the point, it is not in the interest of students. The OfS seeks to be honest about the experience students receive, however uncomfortable that may be. That is our job. In this, we take our cue from the principles that underpin the institutions we regulate: universities are places of intellectual exploration and, above all, honest enquiry. By drawing attention to the evidence, and to areas of concern as well as outstanding strength, we aim to offer challenge, support and opportunity for improvement that will make our exceptionally strong higher education sector even stronger

The blog summarises the areas of focus:

Within the OfS’s broad agenda, Ms Dandridge highlights three key issues that the OfS will pay particular attention to in the year ahead: admissions and recruitment, the quality of information for prospective students, and improving the quality of teaching and courses. To address the first of these issues, the OfS plans to launch a review of the admissions system. Ms Dandridge says:
‘To the extent that the existing system is not serving students’ needs in a fair, transparent and inclusive way, it must change, and we will consult widely with students, schools, providers and others to understand their views and perspectives.
‘We will also consider ways of addressing increasing concerns about some student recruitment practices. Students can be offered enticements and inducements which are often not in their best interests, at a time when they may be especially vulnerable. In particular, we will continue closely to monitor the impact of the damaging growth of ‘conditional unconditional’ offers that require students to commit to a particular course.’
Reforming admissions practices is one way of addressing entrenched gaps in access and participation in higher education which, historically, universities and colleges have been too slow to address. Ms Dandridge continues:
‘What we have seen in the past is ‘slow but steady’ improvement. The trouble is that slow and steady is too slow when people’s livelihoods and opportunities are at stake. That is why we are now looking for a radical improvement in progress.
‘There is work to do to dispel wider, persistent myths and misperceptions about access and participation: that universities and colleges cannot be expected to compensate for poor schooling and wider social inequalities; that contextual admissions are unfair; that disadvantaged students will always do less well in their degrees. Research shows that if students from disadvantaged backgrounds are helped to make the right choice of what and where to study, and given the support that they need during their time in higher education, they can end up performing just as well as, if not better than, their more privileged peers.’
The second of three issues identified by Ms Dandridge as priorities for the year ahead is improving the quality and reliability of information available for prospective students:
‘Providers registered with the OfS must demonstrate that the information on their websites and marketing materials is accurate and accessible. At a time when questions are being asked, and concerns raised, about the value of a higher education degree, it is more important than ever that students are able to make informed choices about what and where to study based on clear, correct information. There can be no place for false and misleading advertising in how universities sell themselves to prospective students, or a lack of clarity about their rights.
‘We cannot have a situation where students’ expectations are raised unrealistically before they go to university, only to be dashed when they get there. Such marketing is clearly within the scope of consumer protection law, and we will act swiftly and decisively where we find evidence of breach.’
The third priority identified is how universities, colleges and other higher education providers address concerns identified by the new regulatory system – particularly the quality of teaching. Ms Dandridge says:
‘As our attention turns to regulating the providers we have now registered, we now plan to use our regulatory tools to support improved quality of teaching and courses. We plan to consult on whether our requirements for quality are sufficiently demanding to ensure that all students receive a good education.
‘We set numerical baselines for indicators such as continuation, completion and employment as part of our assessment of the outcomes delivered for students. Our view is that a minimum level of performance should be delivered for all students, regardless of their background or what and where they study. We will consult on raising these baselines so that they are progressively more demanding and using our regulatory powers to require providers to improve pockets of weak provision.’

In the main document, there are some interesting points:

Registration:

Over 500 applications were received from higher education providers to join the OfS register.
A total of 387 providers were registered.
Eight providers were refused registration
The majority of applications (446) and registrations (330) were for the ‘Approved (fee cap)’ category, which allows providers to charge tuition fees up to the higher limit.
The majority of providers on the Register (373) had been regulated under the previous higher education regulatory systems. 14 providers not regulated under the previous systems have been registered

And the process has not been without challenges:

The vast majority of registered providers have had some form of regulatory intervention imposed. Some have had more than one intervention applied to them. Only 12 providers had no interventions as part of the registration decision. The total number of interventions applied as of 23 October 2019 was 1,109.
Most interventions (615) took the form of a formal communication. There were 464 requirements for enhanced monitoring, and 30 specific ongoing conditions were imposed.
As Table 1 on page 23 shows, interventions have been imposed across all of the conditions of registration. The majority relate to the first condition, on access and participation plans. This is in large part a reflection of our level of ambition and challenge in relation to access and participation.
Fair access and participation is an important OfS objective, and there is an expectation of continuous improvement in reducing the gaps between the most and least advantaged students in access, student success and progression into further study and employment. Many providers not considered to be at increased risk for other conditions of registration were judged to be at increased risk for this condition. The greatest number of interventions (229) have been made to improve progress on access and participation by those universities and colleges that wish to charge higher tuition fees.

And what does the future hold:

There are notable gaps in the data we collect on students’ wellbeing. We are developing ways of capturing more data and as a first step have produced experimental statistics on background characteristics including sexuality and gender identity, which will cover mental health.
We intend to publish a consultation document laying out our expectations for universities and colleges in terms of preventing harassment and sexual misconduct, and dealing appropriately and effectively with reports of infringements
We will work to improve the quality of the academic and pastoral experience of students, using our powers of monitoring and intervention where appropriate.
We will:
Explore expanding the NSS survey to cover all years of a student’s course.
Continue to fund and evaluate priority areas such as mental health.
Set out our expectations of universities and colleges in preventing and dealing with incidents of harassment and sexual misconduct.
Following the outcomes of the independent review of the TEF, develop the scheme to increase its future role in securing high-quality teaching and learning in the sector.
To ensure we fully understand students’ ideas about value for money, and to maintain pressure on universities and colleges to deliver it in the future, we will:
Consider putting a question in the NSS about value for money.
Encourage universities and colleges to be more transparent in their value for money plans about how student fees are spent.
Continue to monitor the pay of senior staff, and consider taking action if it is unjustified.

On 20^th December, Nicola Dandridge published a blog with similar themes:

…students reported valuing the quality of teaching and the learning environment above everything else. This chimes with the discussions I have had with students over the past 18 months, during which the quality of their courses and the academic support on offer was raised again and again – but not always in complimentary terms. Addressing poor quality provision, where it exists, has been one of our top priorities and will continue to be into the future
In particular, we are deeply concerned that some students – disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds – are recruited inappropriately on to poor quality courses and left to flounder without the support they need to succeed. Many end up dropping out altogether – a terrible waste of talent.
Over the course of the next year, we will champion areas where universities and colleges are doing great things. Where there are examples of good practice from which others can learn, we will promote them. We want to get the balance right between promoting good practice where we can, while never shying away from identifying and addressing poor practice and speaking openly about what we are doing

Prevent statistics

From Wonkhe: The Home Office has published statistics on individuals referred to and supported through the Prevent programme for April 2018 to March 2019. Of 1,887 cases reported by the education sector (the largest single sector in terms of referrals), only 324 linked explicitly to Islamic extremism – 530 cases specified right wing extremism. David Kernohan asks if we should be thinking again.

Nursing bursaries are back

In an announcement trailed in the Conservative manifesto the government has confirmed the reintroduction of maintenance support for nursing (and other healthcare) under=graduates, with more details to follow in the New Year.

Students will receive at least £5,000 a year, with up to £3,000 further funding available for eligible students, including for:

specialist disciplines that struggle to recruit, including mental health
an additional childcare allowance, on top of the £1,000 already on offer
areas of the country which have seen a decrease in people accepted on some nursing, midwifery and allied health courses over the past year

This means that some students could be eligible for up to £8,000 per year, with everyone getting at least £5,000. The funding will be available from next year. Further details on who can access the support will be available in early 2020.

The funding will not have to be repaid by recipients. Students will also be able to continue to access funding for tuition and maintenance loans from the Student Loans Company.

What about the Youthquake?

The day of the election, twitter was full of pictures of long queues of students at University polling stations waiting to vote. Students were encouraged by the Labour party to vote tactically. HEPI have a blog about the impact and David Kernohan of Wonkhe did some more intensive analysis.

Nick Hillman says:

The embers of Labour’s defeat are now being pored over for clues on how they might do better next time. It would be wrong to assume that appealing even more to students is likely to boost Labour significantly at the next election, at least with regard to these seats. This is because, despite the general swing away from Labour, Labour held on to all 18 out of 20 that they already held, with the two Scottish seats staying in the hands of the SNP. When you already hold 90 per cent of the most student-dominated seats, there isn’t much further room for improvement.
Indeed, if anything, our tentative results support the idea that Labour’s problem is among less well-educated older people than it is more well-educated younger people.

David asks:

Are constituencies with universities in likely to see changes in the size of the majority of the winning party, or changes in voter turnout?
Turnout is down on 2017 (with a wet December day certainly playing a part in this trend). Intriguingly, turnout fell more in seats now held by Labour, and less in seats held by the SNP. SNP seats, too, saw a polarisation effect – the majority is higher for the winning party on a higher turn out. Conservative seats tended towards a falling turnout and a rise in polarisation.
But there was no way of associating “university seats” with these trends. Behavior was indistinguishable from non-university seats. More generally, if you are looking for an “anyone but the tories” get-the-vote-out pattern in any seat in England you will look in vain. Like other elections before it, 2019 was not the tactical voting election.

Updated UCAS data

UCAS issued more data about the 2019 admissions cycle. There were headlines about unconditional offers (they went up) with some faux outrage associated with it (the bit Ministerial assault on conditional unconditionals came too late for any institution to change its policy for 2019.

From the UCAS reports – main report

Clearing acceptances have been on the rise for several years. This continues into 2019. Over 34,000 UK 18 year olds secured a place through Clearing – the highest number on record. This figure accounts for 14% of all placed UK 18 year old applicants.
On A level results day this year, almost all UK universities and colleges had courses available in Clearing. This covered over 30,000 courses.
Clearing covers a broad range of subject areas. This includes typically highly selective courses, such as preclinical medicine (over 400 placed through Clearing, comprising 7.9% of all UK 18 year old acceptances to this subject) and mathematics (over 600 placed through Clearing – 14% of acceptances to this subject).
2019 also brought the highest ever proportion of places secured through Clearing at higher tariff providers – 9.8%, compared with 8.3% in 2018.
New in 2019 was the option for placed applicants to ‘self-release’ online into Clearing. Nearly 16,000 UK 18 year olds with main scheme places took advantage of this option, with over 11,000 of these placed on a new course.

On unconditional offers:

In 2019, 20.6% of these applicants selected their conditional unconditional offer as their first choice, compared to 25.6% in 2014. Despite applicants needing to select their conditional unconditional offer as their first choice if they wish it to become unconditional, they are now only marginally more likely (1.3 percentage points) to select their conditional unconditional offer as their first choice than any of their other offers individually.
Applicants with unconditional offers were less likely to report feeling stressed when waiting for their exam results. In 2019, over 30,000 English, Welsh, and Northern Irish 18 year old applicants told us how they felt whilst waiting for their exam results. Figure 3 shows applicants with an unconditional offer at their first choice were less likely to feel stressed, worried or uncertain while waiting for results, and more likely to feel calm.
Men receiving an unconditional offer are, on average, 15.5 percentage points more likely to miss their predicted attainment by three or more grades than if they had received a conditional offer.
Women are, on average, 9 percentage points more likely than if they had received a conditional offer.
However, men with conditional offers are less likely to miss their predicted attainment by three or more grades than women with conditional offers. The net effect of the above is that men and women with an unconditional offer have similar attainment relative to predicted grades.
Overall, POLAR4 quintile 5 applicants are least likely to miss their predicted attainment by three or more grades (and quintile 1 most likely).
However, modelling did not show a significant difference between POLAR4 quintiles in the impact of an unconditional offer on attainment.
When the OfS talk about incentives, this is what they mean – UCAS have some data:
- Based on responses from over 30,000 applicants in 2019, 54% of 18 year old applicants in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales reported receiving an offer with an incentive to select the provider as their first choice.
- Of those:
- 56% reported receiving an offer where the provider would change the conditional offer to unconditional (a conditional unconditional offer)
- 30% reported receiving an offer promising a guaranteed place in university halls
- 17% reported receiving an offer which would include a scholarship, bursary or cash payment
- The biggest change in the responses to this question was in the promise of a lower grade offer or entry requirement as an incentive for selecting the provider as their first choice. In 2018, 23% reported receiving this type of offer. In 2019, this proportion has risen to 36%.
- UCAS’ terms of engagement require providers to communicate their offers through the UCAS system. This promotes transparency and provides consistency in experience for applicants.
- However, survey data suggests 30% of applicants who received any type of incentivised offer only received them directly from the provider – via post or email.
- When looking at applicants who received an offer which would be changed from conditional to unconditional if selected as their first choice, 26% reported only receiving it via post or email, and that it was not mentioned in their offer conditions.
All very interesting stuff for the OfS when doing their review of admissions.

Wonkhe have an article
- With only one in five 18 year olds meeting or exceeding their predicted grades in 2019, there are clearly questions to be asked
- However the margin of error is highly predictable – predictions generally lie within 2-3 points above the actual grades, and this year’s figure is 2.35 points. There are differences based on attainment – higher predicted grades are likely to mean a smaller average difference – and more likelihood that an applicant would meet or exceed predicted grades.
- ….The emphasis in guidance and reporting is that predicted grades should be seen as one part of a holistic system – a nod to more contextual approaches to admissions playing a wider role. Intriguingly there has been a rise in the acceptance rates for applicants holding three E grades over last year.
Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

18 December 2019

27th Managing Osteoporosis Conference – Prof Jane Murphy and Dr Susan Dewhurst

jonesc

Both Dr Susan Dewhurst and Prof Jane Murphy from BU’s Ageing and Dementia Research Centre were invited to speak at the 27th Managing Osteoporosis conference 2019 on 9-10^th December 2019 at RBCH alongside a number of high profile speakers from across the UK. There were over 200 delegates from across the South including consultants, nurses and other Allied Health Professionals. Susan spoke about ‘Exercise for Fall Prevention: What Works?’, whilst Jane updated delegates on ‘Diet, Nutrition and Ageing’.

The talks garnered a lot of interest with new insights for bone health and managing osteoporosis and opportunities for collaboration.

18 December 2019

Concussion rule changes to impact upon football

ahmedo

Outside of my academic role at BU, I also have a voluntary role as Head of Medical at the International Federation of Cerebral Palsy Football (https://www.ifcpf.com/organisation). I took over this position earlier in the year, and part of my remit was to look at concussion in the game. This is of particular interest to me as my PhD (and a lot of my research since then) has been focused on concussion in sport.

There has been a lot of discussion about bringing in temporary concussion substitutes into mainstream football and FIFA/UEFA have been under a lot of focus for this. The idea behind temporary concussion substitutions is to allow clinicians time to assess a player at the side of the pitch, without putting both the injured player and clinician under pressure to make a rushed decision regarding their return to play.

To date, there haven’t been any rule changes in the mainstream version of football. However earlier this month I was able to lead on the introduction of temporary concussion substitutions in Cerebral Palsy Football:

https://www.ifcpf.com/news/ifcpf-unveils-new-temporary-concussion-substitution-%28tcs%29-policy

This is a big step forwards for football as a whole, and hopefully will lead other (larger!) sports federations to follow. The temporary concussion substitution policy was created with player input and shaped by the IFCPF Medical Committee. We are already in discussions with the International Blind Sports Federation to bring about a similar rule for Blind Football, and hopefully in 2020 there will be more examples of rule changes like this to benefit players in all forms of football (and other sports).

18 December 2019

Conversation article: How breastfeeding sparked population growth in ancient cities

Rachel Bowen

Historians down the ages have examined the ebb and flow of populations in ancient societies. But most of these examinations have tended to focus on male dominated events – the wars, the politics and the money. But there is another side to the past that struggles to be heard over the clashing of swords. It is this unreported history that our new research focuses on.

My colleagues and I at Bournemouth University and the University of Warsaw used advanced chemical techniques to study breastfeeding in some of the world’s early cities in ancient parts of Syria and Lebanon. We analysed small pieces of bone from infants, children and mothers interred in ancient Bronze Age cemeteries between 2800 and 1200 BC by using a technique known as stable isotopes analysis. From this we built computer models that estimated the age of weaning (the introduction of complementary foods to a breastfeeding child’s diet) and complete weaning (stopping breastfeeding entirely) in these populations.

Our research found that women seem to have exclusively breastfed their children until about the age of six months and completely stopped around the age of two and a half – earlier than was common elsewhere at this point in history. These earlier weaning times may have helped boost the population of these cities, which became flourishing centres of civilisation.

The sites we excavated were urban centres on the Mediterranean coast, and between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in what was called Mesopotamia. Children’s bones found by archaeologists are often more fragile than those of adults, as they are smaller and not completely mineralised (their bones have less inorganic material such as calcium than those of adults). This means they often get damaged or are lost through decomposition.

However, enough children were excavated at these cemeteries for chemical analysis and confident statistical modelling. That’s partially due to the ancient Near Eastern practice of burying infants and children in jars, which partially protected the bones from the burial environment.

A Middle Bronze Age infant from the Lebanese site of Sidon buried in a large jar.
Claude Doumet-Serhal, CC BY-NC-ND

Our ancient sites were metropolitan hubs and probably had wide-ranging contact from people all over the ancient world. Within these cities, women seem to have exclusively breastfed their children until about the age of six months, which fits with the World Health Organization’s recommendations for healthy infant feeding.

While other foods seem to have been introduced after six months, complete weaning stopped around the age of two-and-a-half. And these times seem to fit with written records from that part of the world. For example, there are some Babylonian contracts dating to as early as 1000 BC between parents and a wet nurse (a woman who would breastfeed the baby as if it were her own). According to these contracts, the wet nurse would breastfeed the baby for a proscribed amount of time, often around two to three years, and be repaid in barley, oil, wool and sometimes silver.

Later religious texts also provide clues. Some books in the Bible (Maccabees and Chronicles) note breastfeeding lasting for three years, and later sources from the first millennium AD such as the Quran and the Babylonian Talmud estimate this period as two years.

Relic from Mesopotamia (2000-1500 BCE) at The Sulaimaniya Museum, Iraq, shows a woman breastfeeding her child.
Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin, CC BY

Breastfeeding on average for two and a half years might seem like a long time in most modern cultures but it’s shorter than in many ancient societies as revealed by archaeological studies from all over the world also using stable isotopes analysis to estimate infant feeding practices. These found that the global average length of time until initial weaning in in pre-industrial societies would have been one year (as opposed to six months in our ancient cities). And complete weaning occurred at around the age of three.

Breastfeeding and populations

The timing and nature of weaning and complete weaning have long-lasting health impacts through infancy and even into adulthood. But beyond their impact on the health of individuals, breastfeeding and infant feeding strategies also affect population structures.

Breastfeeding for longer tends to mean women have gaps between pregnancies, and this has been considered a major factor in controlling fertility in hunter-gatherer groups where breastfeeding up to and beyond the age of five was the norm. In contrast, earlier weaning is associated with early farming communities with higher population growth.

This means the shorter breastfeeding times shown by our findings may have helped boost the population of the cities of ancient Syria and Lebanon. It could have been the result of having access to cereal crops such as wheat and barley and dairy products such as yogurt, which could easily be fed to children as weaning supplements. Agriculture was introduced earlier in this part of the world than elsewhere and coincided with the emergence of urban civilisations and the establishment of wide reaching international networks.

Sidon, for example, grew into one of the Mediterranean’s great port cities, connecting the Phoenicians as a commercial power. And our research suggests the strategies they used for childrearing may have had a hand in their achievements. So breastfeeding and weaning in ancient Lebanon and Syria didn’t make it into the big historical texts. But our study shows that these seemingly modern issues had big impact on society.

Chris Stantis, Postdoc in Archaeology and Anthropology, Bournemouth University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

17 December 2019

New Year Research Training Opportunities

Funding opportunities, Post-award, Public engagement, Publishing, Research Ethics, Training, writing Theresa

We have some great events coming up in the New Year to help support you in your research activities.

January

Monday 13th January	RKEDF: Research Outputs – Writing Day
Tuesday 14th/15th January	RKEDF: Writing Academy
Wednesday 15th January	RKEDF: Working with Industry
Friday 17th January	RKEDF: Preparing Practice-Based Research Outputs for Assessment
Monday 27th January	Writing Day – Systematic and Scoping Reviews
Wednesday 29th January*	Introduction to Impact
Thursday 30th January	RKEDF: Environment Narrative Writing Day

February

Tuesday 4th February	RKEDF: EndNote Desktop for Managing References and Writing for Publication
Tuesday 4th February	RKEDF: Good Clinical Practice ‘Lite’
Tuesday 4th February	RKEDF: Building Evidence for REF Impact Case Studies
Tuesday 11th February	RKEDF: Overview of NIHR, CRNs and NIHR portfolio
Wednesday 12th February	RKEDF: Working with Industry
Tuesday 18th February	RKEDF Leverhulme Prize Drafting Workshop
Wednesday 19th February	RKEDF: Advanced Literature Search Techniques
Wednesday 19th February	RKEDF: AHRC Leadership Fellowship
Thursday 20th February	RKEDF: Environment Narrative Writing Day
Tuesday 25th February	RKEDF: Research Ethics @ BU
Wednesday 26th February	RKEDF: Measuring the Impact of Your Research with Advanced Citation Tools

You can see all the Organisational Development and Research Knowledge Development Framework (RKEDF) events in one place on the handy calendar of events.

Please note that all sessions are now targeted, so look closely at the event page to check that the event is suitable for you. In addition, most RKEDF events now require the approval of your Head of Department (or other nominated approver). Please follow the instructions given on the event page and the template email for you to initiate the booking request.

If you have any queries, please get in touch!

*The date of this event may be subject to change

/ Full archive

New Resolutions for Researching

Having Problems with Home Deliveries? Please complete our Campus Delivery Survey

New Publication: Intersectionality as a hate crime research framework

Community-Based Research Event – register your interest

BU signs San Francisco Declaration of Research Assessment

HE Policy Update for the w/e 3rd January 2020

Focus on drop-out rates

Student Loans overhaul

Brexit – it’s not over until it’s over

The problems with apprenticeships

Subscribe!

Hear about NIHR Wessex Applied Research Collaboration – 13th January 09:30 to 12:00

Research Professional – all you need to know

Have you noticed the pink box on the BU Research Blog homepage?

BU academics publish election analysis report within 10 days of the result

New Year’s Eve Celebrations Without the Fizz? New Publication in BULR by Martine Hardwick

27th Managing Osteoporosis Conference – Prof Jane Murphy and Dr Susan Dewhurst

Concussion rule changes to impact upon football

Conversation article: How breastfeeding sparked population growth in ancient cities

Breastfeeding and populations

New Year Research Training Opportunities

January

February

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Research Information Network

UKRI

/ Full archive

Focus on drop-out rates

Student Loans overhaul

Brexit – it’s not over until it’s over

The problems with apprenticeships

Subscribe!

Have you noticed the pink box on the BU Research Blog homepage?

Queen’s speech (again)

Research funding

Office for Students Annual Review

Prevent statistics

Nursing bursaries are back

What about the Youthquake?

Updated UCAS data

Subscribe!

Breastfeeding and populations

January

February

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Search by popular post topics