The Personal Stories of a Methodology Study Group: An independent learning and support mechanism for postgrads
Come along and join in the conversation with the “Gang of Four”: Karen Cooper, Louise Oliver, Mandy Podee, and Jo Thurston.
The result was an enhanced depth of understanding of specific interpretive research methodologies as well as an unexpected support mechanism.
The group’s primary function was to support development of its understanding of methodologies and methods, but an unexpected secondary function was the reduction of a sense of isolation.
United through the fundamental overarching field of narrative research, four doctoral candidates with distinct topic areas were able to collaborate. They not only enhanced their depth of understanding of specific interpretive research methodologies, but also provided support and encouragement to each other within the potentially isolating experience of postgraduate research study.
Congratulations to Mananya Podee (FHSS) and Yolanda Barrado-Martín (FST)!
Great to see both of your papers accepted meaning that BU research to improve the lives of people with dementia and their families will be presented at the British Society of Gerontology 47th Annual Conference ‘Ageing in an Unequal World: Shaping Environments for the 21st Century’ in Manchester in July.
Mananya from the Centre for Qualitative Research (CQR) and the Ageing and Dementia Research Centre (ADRC) will present a paper on ‘Improving holiday accommodation and service provision for people with dementia’. Yolanda from the ADRC and the Psychology Department will present a paper on ‘How is Tai Chi received by people living with dementia and their informal carers?’ based on her work on the TACIT Trial.
Both studies are searching for more people with dementia and their carers to take part. If this sounds like something you might like to get involved in (or you know someone else that might) please contact them for further information.
Mandy is looking for people with dementia and carers to talk about holiday experiences in a short interview. For more information please email mpodee@bournemouth.ac.uk
Yolanda is looking for people with dementia and carers who might like to take part in Tai Chi. For more information please telephone 07801 890258 or email ybarradomartin@bournemouth.ac.uk
12 Journal Editors will join Bournemouth University prestigious CHME2018 conference
27th Council for Hospitality Management Education (CHME) Annual Research Conference –
Innovation in Hospitality: connecting all stakeholders to deliver memorable experiences
22-25 May 2018 Bournemouth University, UK www.bournemouth.ac.uk/CHME
Professor Levent Altinay, Editor in Chief, Service Industries Journal, Oxford Brookes University, UK
Professor Clayton Barrows Editor of the International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, University of New Hampshire, USA
Professor Dimitrios Buhalis, Editor in Chief, Tourism Review, Bournemouth University, UK
Professor Cihan Cobanoglu Editor in Chief Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, University of South Florida, USA
Professor Ulrike Gretzel Associate Editor, Annals of Tourism Research, University of Southern California, USA
Professor Jay Kandampully, Editor, Journal of Service Management, Ohio State University, USA
Dr Peter Lugosi, Reviews Editor, Hospitality & Society, Oxford Brookes University, UK
Professor Fevzi Okumus, Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, USA
Professor Hanqin Qiu,Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Nankai University, China
Dr Ioannis Pantelidis, Co-Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, University of Brighton, UK
Professor Bruce Tracey, Editor-in-Chief, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Cornell University, USA
Professor Perry Hobson, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Taylor’s University, Malaysia
They will hold two workshops during the conference
Tuesday 22 May 16:00-17:30 Research Publication Retreat Meet the Editor and Publish high impact papers
Friday 25 May 15:30-17:00 Research and Knowledge cocreation, REF2021 and publications
The Doctoral College would like to present the April monthly update. This monthly update is for PGRs and their supervisors outlining upcoming research skills and development opportunities including events, workshops and networking opportunities supported by the Doctoral College.
We report here on a successful programme of research, involving engagement with public policy, aimed at reducing the scourge of economic crime. If accepted the proposals made would have a substantial impact on frauds involving major companies, especially those in the financial services sector.
Economic crime takes many forms: from traditional manifestations of fraud, bribery, money-laundering and tax evasion to modern slavery and human-trafficking offences providing forced labour. Striking at the heart of global security, funding terrorism and political espionage, it also inflicts direct costs to businesses and economies, nationally and world-wide. Fraud alone is calculated to have cost the UK economy c. £190 billion (2017) while global estimates reveal a loss of £2.75 trillion (2013).
Focusing on corporate criminality, in March 2017, we responded to the Ministry of Justice Call for Evidence on Corporate Liability for Economic Crime. We argued that the current preference for corporate liability premised on the company’s failure to prevent criminal misconduct, as exemplified in the Bribery Act 2010, has little application in the context of widespread frauds emanating from “criminogenic” corporate cultures. Central to our proposals were a unique approach to attributing corporate dishonesty, through the adoption of a Criminal Practice Direction, and a shift of resources from regulation and compliance to investigation and prosecution of serious fraud.
In March and April 2018, we went on to publish our full results in a series of two articles in the Company Lawyer: New models of corporate criminality: the development and relative effectiveness of “failure to prevent” offences; and New models of corporate criminality: the problem of corporate fraud – prevention or cure? The General Editor of The Company Lawyer is Professor Barry Rider, Cambridge University, who was honoured in 2014 with the award of an OBE for services to the prevention of economic crime.
The research for these articles was wide-ranging with many questions that needed to be asked, from the definition of fraud itself and the scale of economic crime to the relative effectiveness of models that could be employed to tackle corporate fraud. Traditional “black letter” law research was useful for some aspects, for example, the analysis of the Bribery Act 2010 and its extension in the Criminal Finances Act 2017 in relation to offshore tax evasion. Other questions required substantial historical research, such as the law’s response to the particular problem of bribery and the precedents for the successful use of a “failure to prevent” model of criminality. The impact of reforms and potential reforms required a detailed analysis of recent prosecutions and the use of deferred prosecution agreements.
On Sunday 18th March 2018, the Independent reported Solicitor-General Robert Buckland MP as saying there is a “strong case” for a new corporate economic crime offence. We anticipate that our timely research will prove valuable in shaping the debate as to what the law should be and how it can be made to work.
The Research and Knowledge Exchange Office (RKEO) through the Research & Knowledge Exchange Development Framework (RKEDF) have a number of workshops in the coming months to assist you in developing and enhancing the impact that you can make with your research, with particular reference to the REF.
Please follow the links above to find out more and to book. You will then receive a meeting request giving the room location. Many of these events have input from external presenters; please ensure that you are in the room and ready to commence at the given start time.
Then think how magnificent it would be if every single one was purposeful and powerful – sharing information, making decisions, identifying actions – but just without there being so many of them, or them taking so long!
In this session, we’ll use the 9 Characteristics of the Productivity Ninja™ to inspire change in your meeting skills, and you’ll identify specific ways your team can implement each of them, providing the opportunity to think about what makes effective, productive and fun meetings, and gives you the ideas and tools to make that happen.
Find out more and book your place now for the afternoon of Wednesday, 18th April 2018. This session, for BU Staff, will be at the Lansdowne Campus, with the location given in your booking confirmation.
Please also take a look at the external facilitator’s video, which introduces this workshop.
BU is preparing submissions for units of assessment (UOAs) for REF 2021. Preparation for each UOA is led by a UOA Leader who is supported by an Impact Champion and an Output Champion. From March 2018, UOA Leaders are recruited via an open and transparent process. All academic staff have the opportunity to put themselves forward for UOA Leader roles. The roles are until December 2020.
We are currently seeking expressions of interest (EoIs) from academic staff interested in leading preparations for two UOAs:
Public health, health services and primary care
Allied health professions, dentistry, nursing and pharmacy
UOA Leaders serve a term up to December 2020, although they can choose to step down during this time. The UOA Leader undertakes a vital role in driving and delivering BU’s REF submission, influencing the University’s preparations, shaping optimal submissions for each UOA and ultimately having a significant effect on BU’s REF 2021 results.
Key responsibilities of the UOA Leader role include:
Providing leadership, advice and support on all issues relating to research planning, impact, performance metrics and published guidance relating to the UOA
Considering the widest available staff pool for the UOA and present these options to the REF Committee (being mindful of where this potentially impacts upon other UOAs)
Having an institutional outlook for the REF, i.e. aiming to optimise BU’s overall REF performance
Optimising the UOA submission and that of related UOAs by working to mitigate weaknesses and to highlight strengths across all aspects of the submission
Ensuring that outputs undergo rigorous review, internally and externally in order to assess quality prior to inclusion for REF
Working with Impact champions and the Impact Working Group to understand the interrelationship of case study quality, selection, placement and staff numbers for the UOA
Leading on REF communications within departments represented in the UOA and be the key point of contact and advice with regard to the UOA for Heads of research entities, DDRPPs and Executive Deans
Working closely with RKEO who are managing the central REF preparation and submission process
Attend the REF Committee meetings
Being a UOA Leader is a big commitment and is recognised accordingly. UOA Leaders are given time to attend meetings and take responsibility for tasks. As such potential applicants should discuss their workload balance with their Head of Department before applying.
Application process:
To apply for either role, please submit a short statement (suggested length 300 words) stating which role you are interested in and explaining your interest in the role and what you could bring to it. This should be sent by email to Julie Northam by 5pm on Thursday 12 April 2018.
The EoIs will be reviewed by a gender balanced panel comprising a DDRPP and a member of the professoriate. Applicants successful at this stage will be invited to an interview with the same panel.
The selection criteria used at EoI and interview stage are outlined below. Each criterion carries a total possible score of 5. The role will be offered to the highest scoring applicant. A member of the panel will provide feedback to all applicants.
Commitment, motivation and enthusiasm (scored out of 5): Being a UOA Leader is a big commitment. UOA Leaders need to be willing and able to make this commitment. They need to be enthusiastic about the REF and boosting research performance.
Skills and knowledge (scored out of 5): UOA Leaders should bring with them skills and knowledge to optimise BU’s REF preparations and submission (e.g. knowledge of the REF process, expertise in research metrics, leadership experience, knowledge about impact, experience of writing and delivering research strategies, etc).
Plans for preparing the UOA submission and awareness of the potential challenges and opportunities UOA Leaders are responsible for driving and delivering the UOA’s submission to REF 2021 whilst also maintaining an institutional outlook to optimise BU’s overall REF performance. They should have ideas for how they will do this and the potential challenges and opportunities of this, specific to the UOA.
Questions:
Questions regarding the process should be directed to Julie Northam (Head of RKEO).
UOA-specific questions should be directed to Prof Vanora Hundley (Deputy Dean for Research in HSS) or to Prof Tiantian Zhang (Deputy Dean for Research in FST)
Association for Psychosocial Studies Biennial Conference
5th-7th April 2018, The Fusion building, Talbot Campus, Bournemouth University
‘Psychosocial Reflections on a Half Century of Cultural Revolution: The 50th anniversary of seasons of love and protest’
Keynote Speakers:
Barry Richards (BU), Gail Lewis (Birkbeck) Lynne Segal (Birkbeck) Sally Alexander (Goldsmiths) Liz Frost (UWE)
Join us to reflect on revolutionary relationships and revolutionary politics which challenged authority then and which influence us now.
The cultural forces and the political movements of 1967 and 1968 aimed to change the world, and did so. Recent development of some populist and protest politics could be seen as a continuation of the revolutionary movements in the 1960s. Hedonic themes that recall the summer of love suffuse contemporary life, and self-reflection and emotional literacy have also become prominent values, linked towards human diversity and the international community.
We have over 37 panels that include interdisciiplinary academic papers from renowned international scholars from the spheres of history, politics, feminism, psychoanalysis, sociology and also art, digital media, poetry and social dreaming workshops and film screenings . On Friday evening there is a public engagement Cabaret event with poetry, music and comedy and everyone is welcome!
As part of the new plan BU2025, “we want to continue to develop our global partnerships and links with other institutions and organisations”. This is an admirable aim, and it is, of course, the best way forward for a truly global Higher Education Institution like Bournemouth University (BU). But to translate this general aim into a particular global partnership we need to consider the underlying processes of initiating and developing such partnerships. We published a paper [1] on the issues one needs to consider in developing a partnership, based on the example of BU’s partnership with Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences (MMIHS) in Nepal.
In late February this year MMIHS signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with BU at a ceremony in the Nepalese capital Kathmandu, where Prof. Stephen Tee represented BU. This MOA is an agreement between us that provides a basis on which the parties will consider potential future collaboration. The UoA formalises a long-standing collaboration between the two institutions, and indicates a desire to collaborate further in the future. MMIHS and BU academics have jointly applied for research grants, conducted collaborative research and published together and it is exactly this personal link between people that allows this, and many other, global partnerships to flourish.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health
Reference:
van Teijlingen, E., Marahatta, S.B., Simkhada, P., McIver, M., Sharma, J.P. (2017) Developing an international higher education partnerships between high & low-income countries: two case studies J Manmohan Memorial Inst Health Sci, 3(1): 94-100.
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 ResearchProfessional. 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 ResearchProfessional.
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 ResearchProfessional. 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 ResearchProfessional. They are holding monthly sessions, covering everything you need to get started with ResearchProfessional. 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 a new box appear 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.
Congratulations to two Faculty of Health & Social Sciences PhD students, Preeti Mahato and Elizabeth Waikhaka, who co-authored a paper published in the WHO South-East Asia Journal of Public Health. Their paper is called ‘Social autopsy: a potential health-promotion tool for preventing maternal mortality in low-income countries’.[1] Co-authors include Dr. Puspa Pant from the Centre for Child and Adolescent Health, University of the West of England (Bristol) and Dr. Animesh Biswas based at the Reproductive & Child Health Department, Centre for Injury Prevention & Research, Bangladesh (CIPRB) in the capital of Bangladesh, Dhaka.
The authors argue that verbal autopsy is used to attribute a clinical cause to a maternal death. The aim of social autopsy is to determine the non-clinical contributing factors. A social autopsy of a maternal death is a group interaction with the family of the deceased woman and her wider local community, where facilitators explore the social causes of the death and identify improvements needed. Although still relatively new, the process has proved useful to capture data for policy-makers on the social determinants of maternal deaths. This article highlights the potential role of social autopsy in health promotion.
Reference:
Mahato, P.K, Waithaka, E., van Teijlingen, E., Pant, P.R., Biswas, A. (2018) Social autopsy: a potential health-promotion tool for preventing maternal mortality in low-income countries. WHO South-East Asia Journal of Public Health7(1): 24–28.
Last week I attended and presented e-poster at the RCOG (Royal College of Obstetrics & Gynaecology) World Congress 2018 in Singapore. The main congress programme run 22 to 24 March. RCOG president Professor Lesley Regan told in her opening speech that this Congress had more than 2,800 delegates and 150 speakers from 82 countries. Prof Regan also said that the Congress focused on the need for all to work in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology and to act as advocates for women’s health. Furthermore, she stressed that it is necessary to look beyond clinical aspects and provide safe, high-quality care to speak for the needs of the women, many of whom have no choice of their own.
The e-poster I presented ‘Study of rural maternity and childbirth care in a southern district of Nepal’ is part of my PhD study on maternity care in Nepal.
My e-poster
My poster was displayed on the morning of 22nd March (8:08– 8:16 AM) under the topic ‘early pregnancy and acute gynaecology’. Over the three days programme schedule, I also attended several plenary sessions, oral presentations and viewed many e-posters. Although there were many topics specific to clinical aspects of obstetrics and gynaecology, I was mostly interested in presentations related to contraception and fertility control, abortion, gender equality, reproductive and sexual health of marginalised communities, female genital mutilation, breastfeeding and so on. Overall, it was a great experience to learn about research in women’s health and maternity care and an opportunity to do networking with researchers with similar interests.
Finally, I would like to thank Santander Awards to provide me fund to cover my expenses to attend this congress and my supervisors for motivating me to apply for this conference.
BU will be launching a new network for Early Career Researchers later in 2018
If you are an ECR* or interested in the development of ECRs at BU, please sign up to attend this pre-launch meeting to discuss your ideas and expectation of this new network. Priority will be given to ECRs in the first instance, but whatever your role at BU, please sign up as your input will be most welcome.
This session will take place at Talbot Campus on Wednesday, 25th April, from 13:00 – 15:00, with refreshments, but not lunch. provided.
*an ECR, in this case, is defined as someone who started their research career on or after 1 August 2013. This is the point at which they held a contract of employment of 0.2 FTE or greater, which included a primary employment function of undertaking ‘research’ or ‘teaching and research’, with any HE or other organisation, whether in the UK or overseas.
ESRC offer ESRC-funded researchers a one-day media training session that provides the opportunity to develop practical media skills in a safe environment.
The training is an opportunity for researchers, no matter what stage of their career, to develop their skills and feel comfortable handling media interviews. Whether a PhD student, postdoctoral researcher or senior fellow, the new practical media training session provides the guidance needed to engage the media with confidence – and plenty of opportunity to practice.
Click here for information on dates and locations and how to book on to the training.
Overnight, Cricket Australia handed out its promised “significant sanctions” for a ball-tampering incident that has engulfed the sport in scandal. Steve Smith and David Warner, the team’s captain and vice-captain, have been banned for 12 months. Cameron Bancroft, who carried out the failed plot, received a nine-month ban.
It was also revealed it was sandpaper, and not “yellow tape and the granules from the rough patches of the wicket” as originally claimed, that Bancroft tried to use to alter the ball’s condition in the Test match between South Africa and Australia.
While the International Cricket Council (ICC) initially suspended Smith for only one Test, all three are now banned from international and domestic (professional) cricket in Australia. Smith and Warner have also had their lucrative Indian Premier League contracts torn up, and some sponsors have already distanced themselves from the players and the sport. But these measures fall short of the lifetime bans some called for.
As captain, Smith has borne the brunt of the public and media vitriol, particularly as he accepted responsibility for what had happened. He may yet be Australian captain again in the future.
But according to Cricket Australia’s investigation, it was Warner who developed the plan and instructed Bancroft – a younger player – to carry it out. Warner also showed a “lack of contrition” and will therefore not be considered for any leadership position in the future.
Ball tampering is clearly cheating; it breaks the rules and is against the “spirit of cricket”. But while it has been deemed the “moral equivalent of doping”, there is a lack of consistency in how sanctions are dished out to offenders.
Bans for doping violations are often severe. Players such as Andre Russell have been banned for 12 months for failing to record their whereabouts for drug testing. But, historically, ICC bans for ball tampering have been more lenient: Pakistan’s Shahid Afridi received a two-game ban for biting the ball in an attempt to alter its condition.
However, a harder line has been taken for incidents of match-fixing. Three Pakistan players were banned and jailed for a spot-fixing incident in 2010. South Africa’s Herschelle Gibbs received a six-month ban in 2000 for agreeing to fix a match, even though he did not follow through with it.
Lifetime bans are not uncommon in sport generally. Ryan Tandy was banned for life for attempted spot-fixing in a rugby league game. Lance Armstrong was banned from sanctioned Olympic sports for life and had his results voided for his serial doping in cycling. Even figure skating is not immune: Tonya Harding was similarly banned for hindering the prosecution into a vicious attack on a fellow competitor.
It is difficult to compare sanctions across sports. But, when doing so, the inconsistencies are apparent. Boxer Mike Tyson was handed a 15-month ban for biting off part of Evander Holyfield’s ear; footballer Luis Suarez received an eight-game ban for racially abusing an opponent; fellow footballer Paul Davis only served a nine-match ban for punching and breaking an opponent’s jaw.
In light of these punishments, are nine- and 12-month bans for premeditated cheating and lying reasonable and just?
Cricket Australia has been criticised for the time it took to reach a decision. But it’s essential that due diligence is done and facts are gathered before a sentence is handed down. Without this, decisions are made through the pressure of public shaming, and social media get to cast the final vote on the punishment.
If sporting organisations want players to act morally on field, then they too should be guided by moral behaviour in governing the sport.
Sport
Player
Offence
Sanction
Athletics
Ben Johnson
Doping
Two-year ban and stripped of titles; lifetime ban after second offence
Rugby league
Ryan Tandy
Spot-fixing
Lifetime ban from playing in the NRL
Rugby league
Cronulla Sharks players
Doping
12-month bans (backdated)
Australian football
34 Essendon players
Doping
12-month bans
Baseball
Shoeless Joe Jackson
Alleged match-fixing
Lifetime ban
Figure skating
Tonya Harding
Hindering prosecution into attack on fellow figure skater
Lifetime ban
Cycling
Lance Armstrong
Doping
Banned from sanctioned Olympic sports for life and results voided
Boxing
Mike Tyson
Biting opponent’s ear off
15-month ban
Association football
Luis Suarez
Racial abuse
Eight-game ban
Association football
Luis Suarez
Biting opposition player
Four-month ban
Forgive and forget?
Society is often keen to forgive top athletes when they transgress. When athletes admit their mistakes and ask forgiveness it is usually granted.
Over time, sports fans also tend to forget athletes’ errors and focus solely on their on-field ability. In cricket, for instance, Don Bradman’s role in disputes over pay as a cricket administrator is largely glossed over. Shane Warne’s year-long ban for a doping violation is rarely mentioned.
In many sports, athletes’ chequered pasts are ignored in favour of their on-field ability. It is often the actions that come as a result of their behaviour that are judged, and not the infringement itself.
Athletes frequently transgress, but their subsequent redemption is often woven into the narrative around them. Stories around sporting heroes follow several patterns, but the most recognised is the hero’s journey. The “hero” sets out on a quest but is faced by a crisis or descends into a hellish underworld. They “heroically” overcome these challenges and ultimately return to glory.
In this instance, Smith, Warner and Bancroft are in a hell of their own making. If they manage to return, and do so triumphantly, then it is likely they will be forgiven – and some may even forget their role in this sorry affair. Only time will tell whether they will again be considered heroic.
Innovate UK have announced that £33m will be invested in exploiting the new immersive technologies as part of the Audiences of the Future and £20m for Quantum technologies. When more information becomes available, more details will be posted here. As this fund forms part of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, please be advised that the applications may need to involve a UK company. For further advice on preparing for these funds, please contact Ehren Milner (emilner@bournemouth.ac.uk)
As part of a Creative Industries Sector Deal, to be announced today by the Digital and Culture Secretary Matt Hancock, Business Secretary Greg Clark and Co-Chair of the CIC, Nicola Mendelsohn, more than £150 million is being jointly invested by government and industry to help cultural and creative businesses across Britain thrive.
A Cultural Development Fund will also be launched for cities and towns to bid for a share of £20 million to invest in creative and cultural initiatives. The power of culture and creative industries to boost economic growth is evident across the country…[NB Bournemouth is identified as high growth]
The Sector Deal aims to double Britain’s share of the global creative immersive content market by 2025, which is expected to be worth over £30 billion by 2025. To seize on the opportunity of this expanding market, government is investing over £33 million in immersive technologies such as virtual reality video games, interactive art shows and augmented reality experiences in tourism.
Britain is already leading the way in developing immersive technologies. PWC has predicted that the UK’s virtual reality industry will grow at a faster rate than any other entertainment and media industry between 2016 to 2021, reaching £801 million in value, and that by 2021 there will be 16 million virtual reality headsets in use in the UK.
Improving the nations skills is at the heart of the government’s modern Industrial Strategy and to ensure the industry has the skilled workers it needs to deliver this, up to £2 million will be made available to kickstart an industry-led skills package, including a creative careers programme which will reach at least 2,000 schools and 600,000 pupils in 2 years. A new London Screen Academy, with places for up to 1000 students, will also open in 2019.
To inform our BU response to the HE Review all staff and students are invited to consider the issues in this (anonymous) 5-minute survey. Please take a look at the survey questions as we’d like to hear from as many staff and students as possible. You don’t have to answer all the questions! The major review of HE will shape the HE system, including how universities are funded for years to come. The survey will be available to staff and students until Friday 20th April.
The Department for Education also published a research report by Youthsight on the influence of finance on higher education decision making
Amongst its findings:
University was the only option considered by the majority of applicants (75 per cent), especially those applying to the higher-tariff universities (78 per cent). This was consistent across socio-economic backgrounds. Getting a job and travelling were the main alternatives considered by applicants
Financial factors were not the biggest influence on the final decision to apply to university. The most important factors were the desires to be more employable, to achieve the qualification and to pursue an interest in a subject. This was the case for applicants from both the higher and the lower socio-economic groups.
Lower socio-economic group applicants placed a higher importance on grants, bursaries and living costs than applicants from higher socio-economic groups, although finance still remained a secondary influence on their decision to apply to university.
The course offered (82 per cent of applicants), university reputation (58 per cent), and potential for high future earnings (41 per cent) were the most commonly cited major influences on applicants’ choices about where to study.
Differences in bursaries offered, tuition fees charged and the ability to continue living at home were secondary factors when choosing where to study. These factors accounted for three of the bottom four of eleven factors tested that might influence which university to choose. However, they were more important for lower socio-economic group applicants.
The maintenance loan, repayment threshold and particularly maintenance grants and university assistance were more important to members of the lower socio-economic group than the higher socio-economic group in alleviating cost concerns.
And the government have published the outcomes of their 2014/15 student income and expenditure survey. There is a lot of data and there are lots of interesting charts, including figure 2.6 (the influence of financial support on my decisions), table 3.7 (what support English domiciled students received by mode of study), figure 4.3 (breakdown of total student expenditure (this one excludes the tuition fee but there is also a chart that includes it), figure 4.4 (total expenditure and housing costs).
The data from both these reports will be pored over to support responses to the HE review.
Freedom of speech
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published its report into free speech in universities. The Committee has also published its own guidance for universities and students:
The Committee don’t identify many actual cases of free speech having been prevented but note a “chilling effect” (it’s hard to prove a negative, of course). The report identifies factors that potentially limit free speech in universities:
regulatory complexity
intolerant attitudes, often incorrectly using the banner of “no-platforming” and “safe-space” policies
incidents of unacceptable intimidating behaviour by protestors intent on preventing free speech and debate
student Unions being overly cautious for fear of breaking the rules
unnecessary bureaucracy imposed on those organising events
fear and confusion over what the Prevent Duty entails
unduly complicated and cautious guidance from the Charity Commission.
Recommendations
That an independent review of the Prevent policy is necessary to assess what impact it is having on students and free speech, after evidence the Committee took demonstrated an adverse effect on events with student faith groups
That the Charity Commission, which regulates student unions as registered charities, review its approach and guidance, and that its actions are proportionate and are adequately explained to student unions and don’t unnecessarily limit free speech
That the Office for Students should ensure university policies proactively secure lawful free speech and are not overly burdensome
That student societies should not stop other student societies from holding their meetings. They have the right to protest but must not seek to stop events entirely
That while there must be opportunities for genuinely sensitive discussions, and that the whole of the university cannot be a “safe space.” Universities must be places where open debate can take place so that students can develop their own opinions on unpopular, controversial or provocative ideas
Groups or individuals holding unpopular opinions which are within the law should not be shut down nor be subject to undue additional scrutiny by student unions or universities.
Chair of the Committee, Harriet Harman MP, said:
“Freedom of speech within the law should mean just that – and it is vital in universities. Evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights showed that there is a problem of inhibition of free speech in universities. While media reporting has focussed on students inhibiting free speech – and in our report we urge universities to take action to prevent that – free speech is also inhibited by university bureaucracy and restrictive guidance from the Charity Commission. We want students themselves to know their rights to free speech and that’s why we’ve issued a guide for students today.”
Some particular points to note:
41 The imposition of unreasonable conditions is an interference on free speech rights. We do not, for example, consider it a reasonable condition that, if a speaker gives an assurance that their speech will be lawful, they be required to submit a copy or outline of their speech in advance.
42 In our view, freedom of expression is unduly interfered with:
when protests become so disruptive that they prevent the speakers from speaking or intimidate those attending;
if student groups are unable to invite speakers purely because other groups protest and oppose their appearance; and
if students are deterred from inviting speakers by complicated processes and bureaucratic procedures.
It is clear that, although not widespread, all these problems do occur and they should not be tolerated.
60 Whilst there must be opportunities for genuinely sensitive and confidential discussions in university settings, and whilst the original intention behind safe space policies may have been to ensure that minority or vulnerable groups can feel secure, in practice the concept of safe spaces has proved problematic, often marginalising the views of minority groups. They need to co-exist with and respect free speech. They cannot cover the whole of the university or university life without impinging on rights to free speech under Article 10. When that happens, people are moving from the need to have a “safe space” to seeking to prevent the free speech of those whose views they disagree with. Minority groups or individuals holding unpopular opinions which are within the law should not be shut down nor be subject to undue additional scrutiny by student unions or universities.
91 Universities must strike a balance to ensure they respect both their legal duty to protect free speech and their other legal duties to ensure that speech is lawful, to comply with equalities legislation and to safeguard students. It is clearly easier to achieve this if debate is carried out in a respectful and open way. But the right to free speech goes beyond this, and universities need to give it proper emphasis. Indeed, unless it is clearly understood that those exercising their rights to free speech within the law will not be shut down, there will be no incentive for their opponents to engage them in the debate and therefore to bring the challenge that is needed to develop mutual understanding and maybe even to change attitudes.
93 It is reasonable for there to be some basic processes in place so that student unions and universities know about external speakers. Codes of practice on freedom of speech should facilitate freedom of speech, as was their original purpose, and not unduly restrict it. Universities should not surround requests for external speaker meetings with undue bureaucracy. Nor should unreasonable conditions be imposed by universities or student unions on external speakers, such as a requirement to submit their speeches in advance, if they give an assurance these will be lawful.
Migration Advisory Committee report on EEA and non EEA workers
The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has published its interim update on the impact of EEA and non-EEA workers in UK labour market. This is the first MAC inquiry of two – the second one is the one about students, this was more general and about workers across all sectors.
The update sets out a summary of the views expressed by employers and of the regional issues raised. They add that “these themes seem the best way of summarising the views expressed to us but should not be taken to imply that the MAC endorses a sectoral and/or regional approach to post-Brexit migration policy.” The MAC has also published the responses to their call for evidence, broken down by sector.
The vast majority of employers do not deliberately seek to fill vacancies with migrant workers. They seek the best available candidate.
Employers often reported skill shortages as one reason for employing EEA migrants.
Many EEA workers are in jobs requiring a high level of skill that take years to acquire. But, some of the claims about necessary skill levels seemed exaggerated.
Within occupations, EEA migrants are better educated than their UK-born counterparts.
The MAC view is that, from the economic perspective this does amount to saying that it is sometimes possible to hire a given quality of worker for lower wages if they are an EEA migrant than if they are UK-born.
To the extent that EEA migrants are paid lower wages than the UK-born this may result in lower prices, benefitting UK consumers. Our final report will also consider these possible impacts.
Many responses argued that a more restrictive migration policy would lead to large numbers of unfilled vacancies. The MAC view is that this is unlikely in anything other than the short-term.
The MAC view is that it is important to be clear about what the consequences of restricting migration would be.
Research bodies update
This week is the launch of UKRI – it is worth looking at their objectives.
Sir Harpal Kumar, who will serve as Senior Independent Member through his role as UK Research and Innovation’s Innovation Champion and work closely with the board
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether his Department is taking steps to ensure that prospective undergraduates understand the potential effect of their choice of course on their prospects post-graduation.
A Sam Gyimah MP The department is working to make destinations and outcomes data more accessible to prospective students, to help them compare opportunities and make informed choices about where and what to study.
On the 12 March 2018, I announced an Open Data Competition. It will use government data on higher education providers so that tech companies and coders can create websites to help prospective students decide where to apply. This competition will build on the government’s Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) dataset, which gives information on employment and salaries after graduation.
Alongside this, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has requested that the Office for Students include LEO data on the Unistats website as soon as possible.
Q Angela Rayner MP To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what estimate his Department has made of the value of plan 1 student loans that will not be repaid.
A: Sam Gyimah MP: It is estimated that the value of the plan 1 student loan book that will not be repaid was £13.1 billion as at 31 March 2017, when future repayments are valued in present terms. The face value of the plan 1 student loan book was £42.8 billion at this time. This information is in the public domain and published on page 155 of the Department for Education’s 2016-17 Annual Report and Accounts which can be found at:
Q Angela Rayner MP: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to the written ministerial statement of 31 October 2017 on government asset sale, HCWS205, what methodology his Department used to decide which loans from the plan 1 loan book would be sold.
A Sam Gyimah MP: The loans sold in December 2017 were a selection of loans from the plan 1 loan book issued by English Local Authorities that entered repayment between 2002 and 2006.
These loans had the longest history of repayments, the longest servicing history and the most accurate data on borrowers’ historic earnings. This information allowed the government to most accurately value these loans for sale.
The government’s objective when issuing loans to students is to allow them to pursue their education regardless of their personal financial situation. Once this objective has been met, however, retaining the loans on the government’s balance sheet serves no policy purpose. These loans could be sold precisely because they have achieved their original policy objective of supporting students to access higher education.
Pursuant to Section 4 of the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008, a report on the sale arrangements was deposited in the House libraries on 7 December 2017 (deposit reference DEP2017-0778): https://www.parliament.uk/depositedpapers.
Q: Angela Rayner MP: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to the written statement of 6 December 2017 on Government Asset Sake, HCWS317, what assessment he has made of the net fiscal effect of the sale of the student loan book after accounting for reduced income arising from lost repayments.
A: Sam Gyimah MP: The government only sells assets when it can secure value for money for taxpayers from doing so. In assessing the value for money of the sale, the government took into account repayments foregone on the loans sold. In executing the sale, we achieved a price that exceeded the retention value of the loans sold, calculated in line with standard HM Treasury green book methodology.
Selling financial assets, like student loans, where there is no policy reason to retain them, where value for money can be secured and where borrowers are not impacted is sound asset management. The sale ensures government resources are being put to best use and is an important part of our plan to repair public finances.
Pursuant to Section 4 of the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008, a report on the sale arrangements was deposited in the House libraries on 7 December 2017 (deposit reference DEP2017-0778): https://www.parliament.uk/depositedpapers.
The Doctoral College would like to present the April monthly update.
Every BU academic has a 
By clicking on this box, on the left of the Research Blog home page just under the text ‘Funding Opportunities‘, you access a 
ESRC offer ESRC-funded researchers a one-day media training session that provides the opportunity to develop practical media skills in a safe environment.
SERVED research project: Supporting Evidence-based Research for Veterans Experiencing Dementia
Alzheimer’s Awareness Week – join us in BGB on Tuesday 20th May
Nanocoatings to Bionanocomposites: Sustainable Solutions
Take part in the 2025 ESRC Festival of Social Science – Deadline for applications: Thursday 15 May 2025 
AI learning to read emotions from motion….
Horizon Europe 2025 Work Programme pre-Published
MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships 2025
Update on UKRO services
European research project exploring use of ‘virtual twins’ to better manage metabolic associated fatty liver disease