richardshaw.bsky.social
Researcher @ University of Glasgow, UK. Epidemiologist interested in mental-health and wellbeing, health inequalities, administrative data, education.
Trying to learn Italian and Spanish.
160 posts
995 followers
912 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Then we need a different model to fund journalism for the whole population. Making disinformation freely available, while keeping high quality journalism behind paywalls is a recipe for disaster.
comment in response to
post
There are a lot of unfair things in relation to the aviation industry such as lack of fuel duty. If a business treats it's customers like crap, it will also treat the environment and staff like crap too.
comment in response to
post
Article processing fees give journals an incentive to publish things for which there is limited interest. This includes peoples "Tantalizing ideas" that are developed as cases for support for grant proposals but are not sufficiently interesting to be funded.
comment in response to
post
Un-splashy work requires grant funding, and tantalizing ideas are a pre-requisite for that. Maybe this is a downside to open access?
Thirty years ago, perhaps only one or two journal articles would have been published, and everybody else's work would have been buried in rejected grant proposals.
comment in response to
post
A lot of success in academia is being able to be at in the right place and the right time, and that takes privilege to stay in the "game" until a person gets lucky, at which point the person becomes even more privileged.
comment in response to
post
This reminds me of Camara Jones Dual reality—a restaurant saga. An allegory principally about racism but fits for so many other inequalities including those in academia.
youtu.be/GNhcY6fTyBM?...
comment in response to
post
Most universities also have funds to have help academics create start-ups to build on their knowledge and expertise.
comment in response to
post
In my view life course theory should have mostly rendered the age/period/cohort debate redundant, other than perhaps where should we start looking for a causal explanations.
comment in response to
post
It's the Post Doc/PhD Student class being locked out by the Investigator class.
(Primary/co) investigators who view their post docs as coopetition take the majority of the credit, while not giving any opportunities back.
comment in response to
post
The mid 90s following 17 years of Tory government, two stock market crashes and a Tory economic strategy which claimed inflicting pain "Worked". I think that is a bit of a rose tinted view of what was a grim time for many.
comment in response to
post
The problem is that within Universities it is very easy for managerialism to crowd out science.
comment in response to
post
Yvette Cooper was Shadow Home Secretary at the time of the anti-immigration mugs, so it probably is consistent with her principles.
Also, didn't work in 2015 and helped build support for Brexit.
www.newstatesman.com/politics/201...
comment in response to
post
The mushroom murder case is getting more coverage than most wars.
Which in a weird way makes sense as most people probably don't want to start wars, but are embroiled in family conflicts.
comment in response to
post
The problem with the concept of funding the "best talent" in the elite institutions is that unless there is strategy to ensure the the benefits of the research is understood and experienced by the majority of the population at some point the funding will be cut.
comment in response to
post
The US will only start recovering when the "Non-Dumbass Americans" start realising their aggressive and individualistic culture is the problem. Other countries trying to replicate are going to end up with the same or worse problems.
comment in response to
post
Bullshit is speech Intended to persuade without any regards to truth, while a liar acknowledges the truth and tries to hide it, a bullshitter does not care if what they say is true or false. Bullshitters are probably much more dangerous than liars.
comment in response to
post
Use the long convoluted acronym and then everybody else will refer to it as your group because it is easier to say.
Successful groups tend to outlast their founders, and overtime the names become more sensible. Naming a group after yourself is generally setting it up for failure.
comment in response to
post
I have never thought of things in terms of approval seeking behaviour before, but it potentially explains a lot about what is going wrong in UK academia and politics.
comment in response to
post
Worrying whether you have enough papers or not is a very easy way to develop imposter syndrome and harm your career.
While you do need to show an ability to produce something, people do manage to develop successful careers while publishing quite modest numbers of papers.
comment in response to
post
Given how brutal researchers careers are and the resulting inequalities. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that many in Royal society secretly share Musk's values.
comment in response to
post
This survey was targeted at all disciplines. It's probably one of the reasons why the questions were poor.
Nuclear scientists might be less annoyed about the survey's methodology.
comment in response to
post
I accept that I will have to go slower when I am on shared use paths. Sometimes because of that I choose to go on the road instead. Very occasionally, I get abuse from random drivers because I am on a road.
comment in response to
post
You have special roads they are called motorways.
If fast cyclists cycle on shared use paths, they scare pedestrians.
Some motorists take umbrage at cyclists being on roads. Therefore dedicated cycle lanes benefit pedestrians and motorists as much as cyclists.
comment in response to
post
I do a lot of cycling on shared use paths. They are fine for causal leisure cycling. Not so great for people who need to travel a reasonable distance at a pace, e.g. commutes, delivery rides etc.
There is a lack of recognition around the diversity of cyclists' purposes and needs.
comment in response to
post
Marketized Universities and funders have been entirely complicit with promoting tech fantasies. The limited opposition in journals and online, has had very little impact on how research funding and resources are allocated.