University Peer Mentor of the Year Awards

Congratulations to all who were nominated or won an award at this year’s Peer Mentor of the Year Awards. The awards take place every year and celebrate peer mentoring across the University.


Patrick Rosenkranz from Psychology won the top award of ‘Staff Co-ordinator of the Year’ for his work running the Psychology Peer Mentoring Programme.  Runners up were Alison Howard and Jeremy Brown from Biomedical Sciences.


Student Amran Thandi from Pharmacy was the winner of the Peer Mentor of the Year in FMS Award.

See more about the awards on the LTDS blog.

FMS staff awarded HEA fellowship status

Congratulations to the following staff who have been awarded Higher Education Academy Fellow Status.

D1 Associate Fellow

Israa Al-Banaa, ICM

Alison Day, ICaMB

Katherine Johnson , ICM

Hanan Kashbour, IGM

Kirsty McAleese, IoN

Michelle Miller, Digital Skills


D2 Fellow

Rachel Crossland, ICM

Aaron Koshy, FMS Graduate school

Annette Meeson, IGM

Shalabh  Srivastava, IGM

Tom Clifford , BioMed

Alison Howard, BioMed

Alessio Iannetti, Pharmacy

Sarah Jayne Boulton, BioMed

Sarah  Sowden, Institute of Health and Society

Mohammed  Dungarwalla, Medical Education

David Edwards, Medical Education

Helen Hargreaves, Medical Education

Laura Hemmer, Medical Education

Lee Longstaff, Medical Education

Blair Merrick, Medical Education

Chris Taylor, Medical Education


D3 Senior Fellow

Alison Clapp, FMS Graduate school

Richy Hetherington, FMS Graduate school

Richard McQuade, Pharmacy


What is an HEA fellowship?

An HEA fellowship is an international  recognition of a commitment to professionalism in teaching and learning in higher education and demonstrates alignment of teaching practice with the UK Professional Standards Framework.  A senior fellowship recognises in particular:

  • experienced staff able to demonstrate, impact and influence through, for example, responsibility for leading, managing or organising programmes, subjects and/or disciplinary areas;
  • experienced subject mentors and staff who support those new to teaching;
  • experienced staff with departmental and/or wider teaching and learning support advisory responsibilities within an institution

New publication: Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period

Sue Thorpe (School of Psychology) is co-author on a paper just published by the BMC Medical Research Methodolgy Journal.  You can read the abstract below or read the full paper.

Background: Choosing a suitable sample size in qualitative research is an area of conceptual debate and practical uncertainty. That sample size principles, guidelines and tools have been developed to enable researchers to set, and justify the acceptability of, their sample size is an indication that the issue constitutes an important marker of the quality of qualitative research. Nevertheless, research shows that sample size sufficiency reporting is often poor, if not absent, across a range of disciplinary fields.

Methods: A systematic analysis of single-interview-per-participant designs within three health-related journals from the disciplines of psychology, sociology and medicine, over a 15-year period, was conducted to examine whether and how sample sizes were justified and how sample size was characterised and discussed by authors. Data pertinent to sample size were extracted and analysed using qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques.

Results: Our findings demonstrate that provision of sample size justifications in qualitative health research is limited; is not contingent on the number of interviews; and relates to the journal of publication. Defence of sample size was most frequently supported across all three journals with reference to the principle of saturation and to pragmatic considerations. Qualitative sample sizes were predominantly – and often without justification – characterised as insufficient (i.e., ‘small’) and discussed in the context of study limitations. Sample size insufficiency was seen to threaten the validity and generalizability of studies’ results, with the latter being frequently conceived in nomothetic terms.

Conclusions: We recommend, firstly, that qualitative health researchers be more transparent about evaluations of their sample size sufficiency, situating these within broader and more encompassing assessments of data adequacy. Secondly, we invite researchers critically to consider how saturation parameters found in prior methodological studies and sample size community norms might best inform, and apply to, their own project and encourage that data adequacy is best appraised with reference to features that are intrinsic to the study at hand. Finally, those reviewing papers have a vital role in supporting and encouraging transparent study-specific reporting.