The research blog will be temporarily unavailable on Tuesday 30th January from 12pm until further notice.
This is due to an update on the server.
If you have any concerns, please contact the IT Service Desk on 01202 9(65515).
Latest research and knowledge exchange news at Bournemouth University
The research blog will be temporarily unavailable on Tuesday 30th January from 12pm until further notice.
This is due to an update on the server.
If you have any concerns, please contact the IT Service Desk on 01202 9(65515).
Our BU briefing papers are designed to make our research outputs accessible and easily digestible so that our research findings can quickly be applied – whether to society, culture, public policy, services, the environment or to improve quality of life. They have been created to highlight research findings and their potential impact within their field.
For many years Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) was thought to be a disorder exclusive to childhood, and has only recently been recognised as existing in adults. Around 6% of adults have the classic ADHD symptom of inattention and have difficulty concentrating, remembering things and organisation.
This paper examines whether inattention may be linked with problems in the brain system which co-ordinate Working Memory (WM). WM allows you to hold information in your mind while either manipulating the information, or doing something else at the same time. It is essential to build a stable mental ‘task model’ to complete tasks at home, work or study.
Using the Conners Adult ADHD rating scale, adults aged 18–35 were assessed for ADHD symptoms and completed tasks designed to tap verbal and spatial aspects of WM.
Click here to read the briefing paper.
Here are the details:
Want to have an impact in the UK Parliament? Discover how your research could broaden debate and better inform our democracy
Book a place at Research, Impact and the UK Parliament at Plymouth Marjon University on Wednesday 21 March 2018 at 1.30pm.
At our 3 hour training event, you will learn:
“This event was excellent – well organised, highly relevant, focused, all speakers strong, content highly practical” – RIUKP Attendee
Tickets cost £40 and include afternoon tea. If this fee is a barrier to your attendance, please contact us; we may make exceptions in some circumstances.
Book your place at Research, Impact and the UK Parliament now.
Date: Tuesday 6th February
Location: Café Boscanova, 650 Christchurch Rd, Bournemouth BH1 4BP
We will be joined by Dr. Phillipa Gillingham, who will be discussing whether managing protected areas is a wise way of spending conservation resources.
Recent climate change has caused many species to change their distributions to try and track suitable conditions. However, borders of the areas that we are managing and protecting do not move, potentially being a waste of time and money.
What’s your opinion? Come on down to Café Boscanova on Tuesday 6th February to join the discussion. Find out more on our website.
Dr. Gillingham is currently working on the likely impacts of climate change on protected areas in the UK.
A reminder that the deadline for academic applications is Friday 26th January 2018.
Academics are invited to submit applications for this years’ SRA programme. Application deadline is 26th January 2018.
The programme is funded by the Fusion Investment Fund and the scheme continues to focus on supporting departments reach co-creation targets whilst supporting students to undertake research under the guidance of an experienced academic that is directly related to their career path and/or academic discipline. Each department has its own allocation of funding and we encourage collaboration between departments for this scheme.
The academic applications will be assessed against the following criteria which you will need to demonstrate within the application form:
This scheme is for successful students to work for 30 hours a week for a total of four weeks in June/July 2018.
The SRA programme is coordinated via RKEO.
Academics will apply for the funding via an application form. A Faculty based panel will review all staff applications and decide which applications to continue to the student recruitment stage of the scheme. The application deadline for this round is 26th January 2018.
Approved academic applications will be advertised as SRA positions to students with student applications being received, processed and managed centrally within RKEO and distributed to the relevant academics after the closing date. Academics will be responsible for shortlisting, interviewing and providing interview feedback to their own candidates. Successful students will need to complete monthly timesheets, signed by their supervisor for payment.
These SRA vacancies will be available to taught BU students only, where SRA applicants must be able to work in the UK, be enrolled during the time of their assistantship and also hold an average grade of over 70%. Staff are permitted to have multiple SRAs.
If you have any queries, please contact Rachel Clarke, KE Adviser – sra@bournemouth.ac.uk
Serving as the selected ASET Trustee representative on the judging panel of the National Undergraduate Employability Awards was a great honour and amazing experience. As ASET, the UK Work Based and Placement Learning Association, has been a long time award sponsor, it was wonderful to be involved with the Awards in this way.
I was greatly impressed by the quality of the submissions. All of the shortlisted candidates showed clear initiative, innovation and dedication to undergraduate student employability. Judged on the categories of showcasing excellence, innovation and impact, and making invaluable contributions to business and industry, clear examples of creative and innovative Best Practice amongst the sector were demonstrated.
The Student Awards include: Best Placement Student, Best Intern, Best Contribution to a Small to Medium-sized Enterprise, and New Best Brand Manager.
The University Awards include: Best University Placement Service (Both Under and Over 100 Placements), Best University Careers / Employability Service, Most Improved Commitment to Employability, Outstanding Contribution to Work Experience, and Best Collaboration between a University and Employer.
The Employer Awards include: Top Undergraduate Employer, Top Medium-sized Undergraduate Scheme, Best Small to Medium-sized Employer, Best Diversity Initiative in Work Experience, Best Short-term Insight Scheme, Best Recruitment Marketing Campaign, and Best Collaboration between a University and Employer.
A true celebration of student employability, I would highly recommend everyone interested in this area to attend.
For more information on the awards, to view the Finalists and to book tickets: http://nueawards.co.uk/
For more information on ASET, the UK Work Based and Placement Learning Association: http://www.asetonline.org/
Lizzie Gadd warns against jumping on ‘bad metrics’ bandwagons without really engaging with the more complex responsible metrics agenda beneath.An undoubted legacy of the Metric Tide report has been an increased focus on the responsible use of metrics and along with this a notion of ‘bad metrics’. Indeed, the report itself even recommended awarding an annual ‘Bad Metrics Prize’. This has never been awarded as far as I’m aware, but nominations are still open on their web pages. There has been a lot of focus on responsible metrics recently. The Forum for Responsible Metrics have done a survey of UK institutions and is reporting the findings on 8 February in London. DORA has upped its game and appointed a champion to promote their work and they seem to be regularly retweeting messages that remind us all of their take on what it means to do metrics responsibly. There are also frequent twitter conversations about the impact of metrics in the up-coming REF. In all of this I see an increasing amount of ‘bad metrics’ bandwagon-hopping. The anti-Journal Impact Factor (JIF) wagon is now full and its big sister, the “metrics are ruining science” wagon, is taking on supporters at a heady pace.
It looks to me like we have moved from a state of ignorance about metrics, to a little knowledge. Which, I hear, is a dangerous thing.
It’s not a bad thing, this increased awareness of responsible metrics; all these conversations. I’m responsible metrics’ biggest supporter and a regular slide in my slide-deck shouts ‘metrics can kill people!’. So why am I writing a blog post that claims that there is no such thing as a bad metric? Surely these things can kill people? Well, yes, but guns can also kill people, they just can’t do so unless they’re in the hands of a human. Similarly, metrics aren’t bad in and of themselves, it’s what we do with them that can make them dangerous.
In Yves Gingras’ book, “Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation” he defines the characteristics of a good indicator as follows:
So, you might have an indicator such as ‘shoe size’, where folks with feet of a certain length get assigned a certain shoe size indicator. No problem there – it’s adequate (length of foot consistently maps on to shoe size); it’s sensitive to the thing it measures (foot grows, shoe size increases accordingly), and it’s homogenous (one characteristic – length, leads to one indicator – shoe size). However, in research evaluation we struggle on all of these counts. Because the thing we really want to measure, this elusive, multi-faceted “research quality” thing, doesn’t have any adequate, sensitive and homogeneous indicators. We need to measure the immeasurable. So we end up making false assumptions about the meanings of our indicators, and then make bad decisions based on those false assumptions. In all of this, it is not the metric that’s at fault, it’s us.
In my view, the JIF is the biggest scapegoat of the Responsible Metrics agenda. The JIF is just the average number of cites per paper for a journal over two years. That’s it. A simple calculation. And as an indicator of the communication effectiveness of a journal for collection development purposes (the reason it was introduced) it served us well. It’s just been misused as an indicator of the quality of individual academics and individual papers. It wasn’t designed for that. This is misuse of a metric, not a bad metric. (Although recent work has suggested that it’s not that bad an indicator for the latter anyway, but that’s not my purpose here). If the JIF is a bad metric, so is Elsevier’s CiteScore which is based on EXACTLY the same principle but uses a three-year time window not two, a slightly different set of document types and journals, and makes itself freely available.
If we’re not careful, I fear that in a hugely ironic turn, DORA and the Leiden Manifesto might themselves become bad (misused) metrics: an unreliable indicator of a commitment to the responsible use of metrics that may or may not be there in practice.
I understand why DORA trumpets the misuse of JIFs; it is rife and there are less imperfect tools for the job. But there are also other metrics that DORA doesn’t get in a flap about – like the individual h-index – which are subject to the same amount of misuse, but are actually more damaging. The individual h-index disadvantages certain demographics more than others (women, early-career researchers, anyone with non-standard career lengths); at least the JIF mis-serves everyone equally. And whilst we’re at it peer review can be an equally inadequate research evaluation tool (which, ironically, metrics have proven). So if we’re to be really fair we should be campaigning for responsible peer review with as much vigour as our calls for responsible metrics.

It looks to me like we have moved from a state of ignorance about metrics, to a little knowledge. Which, I hear, is a dangerous thing. A little knowledge can lead to a bumper sticker culture ( “I HEART DORA” anyone? “Ban the JIF”?) which could move us away from, rather than towards, the responsible use of metrics. These concepts are easy to grasp hold of, but they mask a far more complex and challenging set of research evaluation problems that lie beneath. The responsible use of metrics is about more than the avoidance of certain indicators, or signing DORA, or even developing your own bespoke Responsible Metrics policy (as I’ve said before this is certainly easier said than done).
The responsible use of metrics requires responsible scientometricians. People who understand that there is really no such thing as a bad metric, but it is very possible to misuse them. People with a deeper level of understanding about what we are trying to measure, what the systemic effects of this might be, what indicators are available, what their limitations are, where they are appropriate, how they can best triangulate them with peer review. We have good guidance on this in the form of the Leiden Manifesto, the Metric Tide and DORA. However, these are the starting points of often painful responsible metric journeys, not easy-ride bandwagons to be jumped on. If we’re not careful, I fear that in a hugely ironic turn, DORA and the Leiden Manifesto might themselves become bad (misused) metrics: an unreliable indicator of a commitment to the responsible use of metrics that may or may not be there in practice.
Let’s get off the ‘metric-shaming’ bandwagons, deepen our understanding and press on with the hard work of responsible research evaluation.
Elizabeth Gadd is the Research Policy Manager (Publications) at Loughborough University. She has a background in Libraries and Scholarly Communication research. She is the co-founder of the Lis-Bibliometrics Forum and is the ARMA Metrics Special Interest Group Champion
Original content posted on The Bibliomagician reposted here with permission. Content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Do you want to showcase your PhD? Raise the profile of your research? Be in with the chance of winning over £500 worth in prizes?
If the answer is yes to any of the above then the 3MT® might be the opportunity for you.
The 3MT® competition cultivates students’ academic, presentation, and research communication skills.
Presenting in a 3MT® competition increases capacity to effectively explain research in three minutes, in a language appropriate to a non-specialist audience.
Eligibility: Active PhD and Professional Doctorate candidates who have successfully passed their transfer milestone (including candidates whose thesis is under submission) by the date of their first presentation are eligible to participate. If your Viva Voce will take place before the date of the University final (7 June 2018) you are not eligible to enter the competition.
Eligible applicants should submit a fully completed application form, to the Research Skills and Development Officers at PGRskillsdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk by midnight on Monday 5 February 2018.
We look forward to receiving your application.
The end of 2017 brought about the start of the second successful ERASMUS funded project for Dr Ben Hicks (psychology lecturer and member of ADRC) and Professor Wen Tang (Head of Creative Technology Department). Working alongside European partners from Slovenia (Alzheimer’s Slovenia), Greece (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki), Spain (Alzheimer’s Castellon and the University of Valencia) and Turkey (Alzheimer’s Turkey), the two year project aims to develop an e-platform that raises awareness and promotes the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to enhance the autonomy of people with dementia and their care partners.
The first meeting was held in Castellon, Spain, at the Universitat Jaume 1 on the 18-19th December 2017 and was attended by Ben and Natalia Adamczewska (ADRC). Over the course of two days, the proposed research plan and outcomes of the project were discussed in more detail and tasks were assigned to each of the European partners. This included establishing an Advisory Group of people with dementia, care partners and practitioners to inform the development of the project as well as conducting a review of best practice within this field.
Although it is only early days, there was a real buzz around the meeting, as the partners discussed the project and the potential beneficial impact it could have for people living with dementia across Europe. The second meeting for the project team is planned for April/May 2018.
If you would like further information on the research please contact Ben on bhicks@bournemouth.ac.uk
You are cordially invited to this lunchtime seminar which is open to all BU staff.
Please feel free to bring your lunch.
Wednesday 24th January 2018
1 – 2 pm
B407, Bournemouth House, Lansdown Campus
The NIHR is the UK’s major funder of applied health research. The NIHR develops and supports the people who conduct and contribute to health research and equally supports the training of the next generation of health researchers. The NIHR CRN Study Support Service helps researchers set up and deliver high quality research to time and target in the NHS in England.
We are fortunate to have two Research Delivery Managers from the NIHR CRN Wessex, David Higenbottam and Alex Jones coming to BU who will be presenting a seminar about the network, funding opportunities and forthcoming strategic plan for 2018, followed by Q & A session.
Please email Michelle O’Brien (mobrien@bournemouth.ac.uk) if you are planning to attend. See you there!
Biographies
David Higenbottam
Has worked in research since 2012.
2012 – 2014 South Coast DeNDRoN Network Manager.
2014 – to date Research Delivery Manager for Divisions 2 and 4 (Division 4 includes dementia as one of its specialities).
Alex Jones
Worked for Hampshire & Isle of Wight CLRN from July 2013 – April 2014.
Division 5 Assistant Portfolio Manager then Portfolio Manager April 2014 – December 2017 (Division 5 includes ageing as one of its specialities).
Currently Acting Research Delivery Manager for Division 5.
Wessex CRN
The Wessex CRN was formed in April 2014, its geographic footprint is Hampshire & Isle of Wight, Dorset and South Wiltshire. It comprises 12 partner NHS organisations and 10 clinical commissioning groups. Research specialities are spread across 6 Divisions.
At the core of all quantitative research at BU are skills with mathematics and statistics.
In these introductory two-day workshops, we will learn the fundamental concepts of statistics and quantitative analysis with the help of SPSS. This is a hands-on programme with statistical analysis designed to help you make the most of the SPSS application to aid your own research and facilitate support of student researchers. You will not need any previous experience with SPSS or statistics.
The RKEO ‘Statistical Analysis with SPSS’ two-day programmes are aimed at faculty staff who would like to learn more about quantitative statistical analysis for their own research purposes or are supervising students undertaking a quantitative research project.
The introductory 2-day programme is designed to assist faculty staff who have no prior knowledge of quantitative statistics and do not have experience with a statistical application like SPSS, or who do not routinely work with this type of data.
Depending on attendees prior experience, planned content includes the following:
The course comprises two sessions:
Please book onto the session which is most appropriate for your needs or both. If you are unsure of which route is best for you, please contact the session facilitator, whose details are given on the internal booking information page.
Each session is limited to 20 attendees but there will be a reserve list maintained so that demand for future sessions can be demonstrated.
These sessions are for BU academics and researchers only.
Students who are studying for a PhD/MRes should not use these workshops, but rather book places on the dedicated PhD quantitative analysis and SPSS workshops via the Doctoral College Researcher Development Programme.
A quieter week policy-wise following the cabinet reshuffle.
Our new minister has been fairly quiet as he settles in and thinks about the many priorities – we expect that the PM wants him to focus on the “major review” – and despite pressure he has refused to get drawn into a discussion of details. He gave a formal response to a parliamentary question earlier this week:
Q – Wes Streeting (Labour): To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if he will publish the (a) scope, (b) timetable and (c) membership the review panel for the review of university funding and student financing announced by the Prime Minister in her speech to the Conservative Party Conference in October 2017.
A – Sam Gyimah (Conservative, new Universities Minister):
As stated in the Industrial Strategy white paper published on 27 November 2017, the government is committed to conducting a major review of funding across tertiary education to ensure a joined-up system that works for everyone.
As current and significant reforms move into implementation, this review will look at how we can ensure that the education system for those aged 18 years and over is:
The government will set out further details on the review in due course.
And the minister spoke at Queen Mary University of London this week in a date agreed while he was still at the Ministry of Justice – clearly the subject matter had moved on given his new appointment. The discussion was covered by Wonkhe – it seems to have been a balanced and reasonable set of responses from someone who is thinking carefully before leaping into the fray.
Of course there has been plenty of advice for the new minister – from calls for him to get stuck into Brexit discussions to defend research funding, mobility etc. (he did vote remain, after all), to questions about the freedom of speech agenda and BME students at Oxbridge (he was one).
John Kingman has been named as the permanent chair of UK Research and Innovation, officially taking the role in April. He has been acting as the interim chair to date to support the shadow running and new set up of the organisation. The Commons Science and Technology Committee are required to ratify his appointment. Also reported in Times Higher.
The debate over free speech continued in the Parliamentary Joint Human Rights Committee this week. NUS VP Doku has called for the number of events with freedom of speech issues to be published to quantify if the ‘issue’ is government rhetoric or genuinely needs tackling. Wes Streeting (MP Ilford North and former NUS President) claims the challenges are “overstated” and that Prevent has had the greatest impact on freedom of speech. He continued that no platforming, under NUS policy, was only used to prevent racism and fascism.
The Home Affairs Committee published Immigration policy: basis for building consensus calling on the Government to make it a clear and stated objective of public policy to build greater consensus and trust on immigration as part of major overhaul of immigration policy making. Read the short summary. The report does not consider specific policy options for EU migration. The Committee will examine these once the Government publishes its forthcoming White Paper on immigration.
Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP commented:
The Report recommends:
The report also notes:
Mayoral pressure
The Financial Times ran an article noting how seven cross-party metro mayors have united to press the Prime Minster to provide a ”more open and welcoming message” to overseas students. The mayors have also written to the Migration Advisory Committee. The FT quotes the letter:
The letter combines last week’s HEPI report showing the huge net financial benefits international students bring with HESA data illustrating a downturn in international student numbers. The FT critiques the letter which uses 2016/17 data stating most students would have applied for their courses before the Brexit result was not known. What the FT fails to consider is that a lower conversion rate between application and enrolment does support the premise that Brexit has caused a fall in student numbers.
The Migration Advisory Committee is due to report to Government in September 2018, however, think tank HEPI is campaigning for an earlier response.
Grammar Schools- A Financial Times article More grammar schools and lower tuition fees are not the answer covers the cabinet reshuffle (the widely reported demise of Justine Greening for blocking the PM’s school agenda) and draws on Education Policy Institute research:
Meanwhile A Guardian article aiming to criticise Damian Hinds suggests that Theresa May is still determined to push grammar schools through
BME withdrawal – The Guardian considers the influence of social cultural and structural factors in Why do black students quit university more often than their white peers? The article quotes the Runnymede Trust (think tank) 2015 report: “University institutions have proved remarkably resilient to change in terms of curriculum, culture and staffing, remaining for the most part ‘ivory towers’ − with the emphasis on ‘ivory’.”
Admissions – In Robin hood and the America dream a Dorset born educator and careers advisor compares the HE admissions differences between Finland, America and the UK, and contemplates their social mobility implications.
A National Audit Office report: Delivering STEM skills for the economy has been published this week. It suggests Government initiative to improve the quality of STEM provision and take up of these subjects and rectifying the skills mismatch has met with some success. However, it pushes for Government departments to create a joined up vision sharing their aims, and a co-ordinated cross departmental plan, the delivery of which can then be examined for value for money. The report notes that the STEM gender gap continues.
The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee continued its examination of the economics of higher, further and technical education across two sessions. The first session considered the differences between UK education provision and comparable economically advanced countries (e.g. Germany). The panel discussed how FE could be enhanced, which countries integrated FE and HE effectively, and methods of encouraging lifelong learning. The narrowing of subjects after GCSE was also criticised. The following session address whether HE was currently prioritised over technical education, and whether this produces individuals with the necessary skills. Apprenticeships and T-levels were discussed in detail.
The QAA has published Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education: Guidance for UK HE Providers. The guidance says
The guidance aims to inform, enhance and promote the development of Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education and includes description of good practice.
Click here to view the updated consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.
Full on: In the brave new world of accelerated degrees and intensified courses a Wonkhe blogger talks about working and studying (MSc) full time. She says universities can make studying more accessible to employees and employers by:
On the employer side the blogger notes that planning a balanced workload with her managers and knowing when key work deadlines fall within her academic calendar. She also recommends employers take a personalised approach to their employees study/work balance. For some this could me changing their hours or work pattern for all or part of their course.
The Smart Machine Age: A Financial Times article describes the changes associated with the smart machines age and the skills graduates will need to develop.
Graduate Recruitment: High Fliers have published The Graduate Market in 2018 noting a 4.9% decrease in the number of jobs available for 2017 graduates. They state this is the first drop in 5 years. The decrease was sharpest in the financial and banking sectors. Part of the blame was, of course, attributed to Brexit effects. Press coverage: The Times, The Guardian and The Telegraph (who note supermarket Aldi is now offering graduate salaries comparable with law and investment banking starter salaries).
Political inventions: It cannot be disputed how often HE has featured in the news in the last year. A Times Higher article reports on a (PA Consulting) Vice-Chancellor survey which reality checks the press, suggesting that some of the furore was politically motivated and often without genuine substance.
Woodgates, PA’s head of education, sums up that university leaders felt under siege.
What students want: The Guardian ask students what they would like the Office for Students to focus upon
Antisemitism on campus: Communities Secretary Sajid Javid announces £144,261 of funding for a new programme to support universities in tackling antisemitism on campus. The programme will be delivered by the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Union of Jewish Students and will involve 200 students and university leaders from across the country visiting the former Nazi concentration camps at Auschwitz-Birkenau. It is expected that the 200 university student leaders who visit Auschwitz-Birkenau will then go on to deliver activity that engages a further 7,500 university students.
Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said:
Josh Holt, President of the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) said:
The new programme will be jointly funded by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Education, building on the Holocaust Educational Trust’s highly successful ‘Lessons from Auschwitz’ programme for school students.
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
It’s been four months since the 2017-18 RKEO calendar landed on your desk. The calendar contains all of the events that RKEO arrange, major funder call closing dates, information on various research schemes, and other activities that will be of interest to academics.
The Research & Knowledge Exchange Office would like your feedback on the calendar before deciding on whether to create next year’s.
Tell us what you think by completing our short survey . All entrants names will be entered into a draw and one lucky person will receive an RKEO goodie bag. The deadline date is Friday 26 January.
The USA shutdown, following the current budget impasse, has started to affect many federal services across the country, but the effect can also be felt abroad. I just noted on the PubMed webpages the above warning: “Because of a lapse in government funding, the information on this website may not be up to date, transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted.” This delay in funding in the most up-to-date health research database will not have a major effect today (Sunday 21 Jan.) as it will have on hundreds of thousands of federal staff facing unpaid leave and many more people facing interruptions in the provision of basic service across the USA. It is however a sign of globalisation, with internal political disputes in the USA affecting people across the globe, including health researchers at Bournemouth University.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
CMMPH
Congratulations to Jenny Piesse and Allan Webster who have just had their paper “Are Foreign-Owned Firms More Likely to Pay Bribes than Domestic Ones? Evidence from Emerging Markets” published in World Development, a 3* journal.
(January 2018, World Development 101:142-161)
Prof Davide Parilli has put in a request to host Francisca Sempere Ripoll as a visiting researcher (full time) from 1 September to 30 November 2018.
Francisca will be working with Prof Parilli on Research on Open innovation.
The planned outcomes are:
– publications
– definitions of new projects
– closer collaboration with the Universidat Politècnica de València of Spain.
If anyone has any objections, please let Jacqui Timms know by 26 January 2018.
In 2017, Nesta launched the Early Years Social Action Fund to scale proven social action programmes that help children aged four to achieve developmental milestones by directly supporting parents. The £1 million fund was used to support organisations that are making an impact, but require support to scale up. Having supported dozens of social action programmes to scale, Nesta have seen that social action works best when there is a clear role to complement, not replace public services, where opportunities fit in and around people’s lives and where any skills needed can be codified and learnt by many.
As the UK struggles with challenges of stagnating social mobility, increasing inequality, and lagging productivity, Nesta have compiled a list of 18 reasons why the early years of a child’s life are so important for social mobility and people’s life chances which show why in 2018 we need to do more to support new ideas that help give all children the best chance to fulfil their potential.
By the time children start school, the gap between disadvantaged children and their peers can be as large as 15 months.
Children from disadvantaged backgrounds hear up to 30 million fewer words than their more affluent peers by age three.
Almost half of all children from disadvantaged backgrounds do not reach their expected level of development when they start school (29 per cent of all children).
In the last decade, more than 2.5 million children in England – including over 580,000 poorer children – did not reach a good level of development by age five.
Opportunity is very unevenly distributed. Disadvantaged children in the best areas are twice as likely to reach a good level of development at age five, compared with similar children in the worst areas.
Gaps are evident by age two and a child’s development at as young as 22 months has been proven to be a good predictor for educational outcomes at age 26.
Of the £9.1 billion the UK Government is spending on early years, just £250 million will reach the most disadvantaged families. Or just 2.7 per cent.
In 2012, the UK was ranked 22nd out of 25 OECD countries for the proportion of expenditure in early years focused on closing the gap in opportunity.
In almost all OECD countries, 15-year-old students who had access to early education outperformed students who had not.
The gap between disadvantaged children and their peers in numeracy and literacy is particularly stark, with a 14 per cent gap in reading attainment, 15 per cent in writing, and 13 per cent in numbers.
The lowest gap is in technology, which if harnessed properly, could potentially help lower the gaps in other areas.
Good early education opportunities improve child outcomes regardless of family disadvantage or the quality of the home learning environment.
The gap in educational attainment by the time a child starts school is one of the key drivers of social mobility, equivalent to, for example, up to two years of learning by the time they sit their GSCEs.
The biggest indicator in how well a child does in their GCSEs is the progress that child has made by the age of five.
Better educational attainment leads to higher qualifications and higher wages later in life.
Top university graduates earn significantly more, on average, than graduates from less prestigious universities, and non-university graduates.
Social mobility is a key driver in productivity and economic growth. A modest increase in the UK’s social mobility to the average across Western Europe would increase annual GDP by 2 per cent in the long term (or an additional £39bn to the UK economy).
The quality of the home learning environment is more important for intellectual and social development than parental occupation, education or income. In other words, what parents do at home is more important than who your parents are.
These 18 reasons go to show that early years is at the heart of social mobility. They underscore the importance – both at an individual and societal level – of focusing on ideas and interventions that can impact child outcomes as soon as possible so that no child begins school behind the starting line.
Today saw the latest publication on the health and well-being of migrant workers by BU staff. The paper ‘A survey of health problems of Nepalese female migrants workers in the Middle-East and Malaysia’ was published in the Open Access journal BMC International Health and Human Rights [1]. The paper is based on data collected by the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Pourakhi (Nepal).
Pourakhi, meaning self-reliant in Nepali, was established in 2003 to advocate for the rights of women who returned to Nepal after having worked abroad. The current Chair Manju Gurung is co-author on our paper.
Since 2003, Pourakhi has established a number of programmes around pre-employment, pre-departure, employment and post arrival support. In 2009, it opened a Shelter Facility to provide a safe space for women who returned to Nepal and were not able to rejoin their family and community. Pourakhi recognized that many women who returned from abroad had been victimized abroad and needed to seek relief from the government. In order to provide assistance to these women, In addition, Pourakhi established programmes to empower women after they return to Nepal from foreign employment. More specifically, Pourakhi established a financial literacy programme to educate women and an in business skills.
Pourakhi has been instrumental in ensuring that the voices of migrant women workers are heard and reflected in national policy and law. Additionally, it has successfully lobbied the government to ratify a number of international laws needed to protect the rights of female migrant workers.
Although Pourakhi began as an organisation by and on behalf of women, it has recognized that all migrant workers have the right to safe migration. Therefore, Pourakhi now assists both woman and men in all stages of the migration process.
The other two Nepali-speaking co-authors are Prof. Padam Simkhada from Liverpool john Moores University, who is also Visiting Professor in Bournemouth University’s Faculty of Health & Social Sciences and Dr. Sharada Prasad Wasti who is working for the Institute for Reproductive Health at Georgetown University, Washington, DC in the USA.
Reference: