Choice, nuance and how everything is Decartes' fault

Hello. Wouldn't it be great if every choice we faced was binary; this or that, up or down, left or right.
The problem is life, science and research are rarely that tidy despite the temptation to make it so and that's what this post is about. When you're reading research or writing assignments it's sometimes tempting to go with the 'one thing or the other' approach as it's easy to write and means that more often than not you won't have to read too much.

But it probably won't get you a good mark and it won't leave you with the feeling that you've done your best.

And more to the point, as tempting as it is, there's often more potential outcomes and options than just two.
The reason why I'm squarely blaming Descartes for this relatively modern obsession is because he was one of the first philosophers to propose that the mind and body were split into two discrete elements-and it really caught on. Suddenly dualism was everywhere and people were dividing things into two categories as explanations for social phenomena. At the moment, dualism is enjoying a renaissance which is interesting and a little surprising. Although maybe it's to do with people wanting simple answers to complex problems in times of uncertainty-it's just a thought.

Anyway, if you want to look up concepts like dualism use Credo, our online database of encyclopedias; it's easy to use and provides enough detail to get you started on most topics.

Finally, remember that most issues are not black and white; subtlety or nuance are important skills when discussing and writing about topics and need to be honed like any other. That always comes from reading and making connections between authors and findings.

As always, come and see me if you want to discuss any of these issues, along with help and advice on anything else.

Think tanks

I've been thinking about referencing again. Sorry, but there it is. I've also been thinking about bias in research and how objectivity still seems to be the holy grail of social enquiry. Personally, I've never been entirely comfortable with the whole subject/object argument as I think we're more complicated than that.

Sometimes people know they're being subjective; the films of Michael Bay, Coldplay records, a restaurant menu where every other word is an adjective, IQ tests and Robbie Savage - these are all things that I'm hugely vocal and subjective about. My opinions are very much my own. But what about a theoretical approach? Does it have to aspire to neutrality or can it also be subjective?

The reason I'm asking the question is that I wanted to write about think tanks. You may have come across these institutes already, but in case you haven't let me explain what they are. A think tank is usually comprised of a group of academics who conduct research from a specific standpoint. Sometimes this standpoint can be political (left or right wing) or methodological (for example, action research) or issue based (such as environmentalism). Rarely do think tanks aspire to objectivity.

So the question for you, as a perspective user of think tank research is, should I read this stuff and stick it in my reference list?
My short answer is yes.
My long answer is yes, but be careful in what you choose. A range of resources is often a good approach if you want a broad scope to your assignment. So read things from multiple perspectives in order to examine themes and inconsistencies across a range of research.

If you'd like a succinct list of UK think tanks then the Guardian (who also have their own bias for you to think about!) produced a nice list last year. Have a look here if you're interested.


One final thing. I'm away now for a few weeks, but I'll be back for September when we'll be picking up the pace in readiness for the new term. Hope to see you soon.

When is a word not a word?

When Google says so. That's when.

Okay. I'll explain. Late last night I heard about a disagreement that had occurred between Google and the Swedish Language Council (SLC) and the connotations of it made my head hurt.

The story goes like this. The SLC is the body who officially decide whether a new word is added to the Swedish lexicon. They recently gave their seal of approval to the word ogooglebar which means something that cannot be found by a search engine; literally, 'ungoogleable'.
So far, so uninteresting.
But then Google got sniffy and told the SLC that they wouldn't recognise the word in their searches. The reason they gave is that didn't want Google to be a byword for all searching. However, Google hasn't had a problem since 2001 with people saying 'Googling' instead of searching, which has led to the suspicion that Google doesn't like the actual idea behind ungoogleable. It would be like the vacuum cleaner manufacturer Hoover suddenly getting uppity about the term hoovering and insisting we say vacuuming instead.

At the time of writing this the SLC has refused to change the meaning and instead have withdrawn it from their proposed list of newly recognised words. So where does this story go next? Frankly who knows, (incidentally, the Guardian covered it like this) but it has to be a worrying development in language and search technology when the search engines think they can control things to this extent.

One more thing on the nature of ungoogleable itself. I've seen a lot of dissertation students recently and most of those sessions have gone fine.
However...

Occasionally a student will meet with me and when I ask the topic they've chosen the answer will be, 'I really want to look at the issue of social exclusion in nomadic goat herders, but I only want UK research published in the last 4 hours and the authors all have to be called Kevin'. At this point ungoogleable as a word is the least of my problems, because I can already tell that this will be impossible. But how can you tell if the research doesn't exist or if it's your research skills that aren't cutting it? Or put another way, how do you spot the absence of something?

The simplest solution is if after trying various combinations of words and phrases you still aren't having any luck then contact me. I may be able to suggest something. Just don't expect me to suddenly find loads of peer reviewed, UK based research on nomadic goat herders with exclusion issues. Well not written by a Kevin anyway.

My next blog will be in about a week when I'll be getting some old friends from university to tell you how useless I was at all things technological. They're somewhat excited at the prospect.

Hope you have a great Easter.

Find stuff, read stuff, find stuff, read stu...

I've talked to a few of you recently about the importance of having a viable system for conducting research.

One of the things I've come to realise the hard way is that searching for materials without taking the time to read along the way tends to lead to this.


The downside is that the pile of material then looks so intimidating you want to avoid reading anything.

This then leads to the thought, 'I know, I'll do some more searching instead because that's still work.' Sort of.

So my suggestion is simply this; once you've found and saved 5 articles, stop searching and read those 5 pieces. That way, you get the benefits that increased knowledge brings (mostly importantly, increased confidence, a wider vocabulary and general encouragement) and you can prune what you don't want to keep as you're going along.

Go on. Just try it.

Randomised Control Trials pt 2...

Yesterday I wrote a post on Ben Goldacre's government funded report looking into how RCT's can be used in the sphere of social policy.

This morning Goldacre was on the Today programme talking about the report so I thought I'd send you the link to the audio.

So here it is.

Marriage and children: any advantages?

I read a report a couple of weeks ago from the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS)  on whether children within marriage do better educationally. This is a hugely contentious issue and broadly divides along right wing/ left wing lines although it's clearly more complicated than that. In America this is a particularly polarizing argument with the Tea Party at one of the debate and the more liberal wing of the Democrats at the other. I haven't looked for the writing of this post, but I'd bet any money that the Daily Mail will have plenty of past articles proposing marriage as the cure for antisocial behaviour, any number of educational failings and probably the state of the English football team too.  

Anyway. I liked this debate on the Today programme as it was about not only the issue of marriage but also what you do with the data to arrive at your conclusions. This is hugely important as any of you that have studied research methods will know all too well. I'm not sure how long the live link to the radio show will work so I'd better include a link to the report which the IFS wrote too.

I know the topic is controversial (as so many social science topics tend to be) but that at least makes for lively conversations. If you've the time for a 'lively conversation' you know where I am.

How to find Social Work research online.

There are a lot of pitfalls you need to be wary of when using the Internet to find research.

I'd put my Top 3 pitfalls as...

1) It will eat up time like you won't believe.
2) You may end up finding material that you're asked to pay for.
3) There will be times when you can't be certain that what you're referencing is reliable.

But it doesn't have to be hard going. There are guides to help you. Here is the Intute guide to how to research the Internet for students of Social Work.

And there are other guides for Social Policy, health and social care and Social research methods.