If you're not doing anything important at 1pm on the 17th April you could do far worse than go to a guest lecture by Anthony Giddens. You may well have read some of his theories previously; if you're studying sociology then you certainly should have! The lecture is due to cover a whole range of issues related to living in the 21st century, including the nature of uncertainty and the balancing of optimism and pessimism. I'm sure it'll be fascinating stuff.
I don't know how many tickets are left, but to try and book a seat you need to email Helen Connolly.
Her address is helen.connolly@beds.ac.uk
Hopefully see you there.
Friday, 12 April 2013
Thursday, 11 April 2013
The legacy of Margaret Thatcher
I have to be careful on this one but here goes...
First thing's first; former PM Margaret Thatcher has died. You've probably heard already, but just in case I'd better make it clear what I'm talking about. Many of the reports on her death and subsequent media discussions have used the word 'divisive' to describe her. Personally I can think of no politician in my lifetime who has so elicited such profound adoration and hatred. Your own reaction to the death of Margaret Thatcher may be indifference. I strongly suspect that your reactions, should you have one at all, will be governed partly by your political leanings, your age and more personal values.
To those of you who are bemused by the vitriol and adoration which has spewed forth since her death I'd like to guide you towards just a couple of issues (with appropriate links) which occurred during her tenure.
The first of these was the Poll Tax Riots in 1990 which is widely considered to be the beginning of the end for her Premiership. In addition there was the residual anger left over from the Section 28 legislation which banned the 'promotion' of homosexuality in schools. David Cameron apologised for this undertaking in 2009.
As a student of the social sciences (I'm making an assumption here) you may well have a view on her assumption that, "there's no such thing as society". The providence of this quote has been fought over for many years, so can I suggest you listen here (fast forward to 50 minutes and 30 seconds if you want to go straight to the piece) to hear an interview with the journalist who Margaret Thatcher actually gave this quote to.
It's a fascinating insight into her values and also how words, when taken in isolation, can be used to subtly alter an intended meaning.
We have lots of books in the library on the history of British politics and Margaret Thatcher will be mentioned in all of them, which pretty much demonstrates her significance no matter you may think of her personally. I'd suggest browsing the shelves at 320.941.
If you'd like any other recommendations then just ask.
First thing's first; former PM Margaret Thatcher has died. You've probably heard already, but just in case I'd better make it clear what I'm talking about. Many of the reports on her death and subsequent media discussions have used the word 'divisive' to describe her. Personally I can think of no politician in my lifetime who has so elicited such profound adoration and hatred. Your own reaction to the death of Margaret Thatcher may be indifference. I strongly suspect that your reactions, should you have one at all, will be governed partly by your political leanings, your age and more personal values.
To those of you who are bemused by the vitriol and adoration which has spewed forth since her death I'd like to guide you towards just a couple of issues (with appropriate links) which occurred during her tenure.
The first of these was the Poll Tax Riots in 1990 which is widely considered to be the beginning of the end for her Premiership. In addition there was the residual anger left over from the Section 28 legislation which banned the 'promotion' of homosexuality in schools. David Cameron apologised for this undertaking in 2009.
As a student of the social sciences (I'm making an assumption here) you may well have a view on her assumption that, "there's no such thing as society". The providence of this quote has been fought over for many years, so can I suggest you listen here (fast forward to 50 minutes and 30 seconds if you want to go straight to the piece) to hear an interview with the journalist who Margaret Thatcher actually gave this quote to.
It's a fascinating insight into her values and also how words, when taken in isolation, can be used to subtly alter an intended meaning.
We have lots of books in the library on the history of British politics and Margaret Thatcher will be mentioned in all of them, which pretty much demonstrates her significance no matter you may think of her personally. I'd suggest browsing the shelves at 320.941.
If you'd like any other recommendations then just ask.
Thursday, 4 April 2013
Welfare reform
And then the Daily Mail did a typically vitriolic and obfuscatory job on their front page yesterday and my point became easy.
Sometimes, individual, extreme cases are used to make political points in the wider context of social policy by people who require 'evidence'.
But I would argue that Mick Philpott is no more typical of parents who claim child benefit than Abu Hamza is of Muslims.
Or Boris Johnston, David Cameron, Sir George Young, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Oliver Letwin and Zac Goldsmith are of men who went to Eton.
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
The big book of mental illness
The Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) is a massively important book. It's the big book of symptoms which allows psychiatrists to categorise and diagnose mental disorders.
I heard a nice 30 minute show about the history of the DSM at the weekend.
You've got 4 days left to listen to it from here.
I heard a nice 30 minute show about the history of the DSM at the weekend.
You've got 4 days left to listen to it from here.
Wednesday, 27 March 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, 26 March 2013
Funding cuts to youth clubs
Heard about this story because a friend of mine who I went to university with now works in this area. She directed me to the story in the Guardian which focuses on funding cuts in Sheffield, but surely the point is that it could be any city or town in the UK. The perception is that youth clubs are seen as a soft service as opposed to core which seems a bit short sighted to me.
Anyway, the story is here and if you're studying youth work it's worth a look. In related news, Sir Merrick Cockell, chairman of the Local Government Association (LGA) has gone on record here to highlight proposed council cuts and the likely effects this will have. It also mentions youth clubs as well as adult social care, libraries and child protection services. It makes for grim reading, but many of you require figures to back up what might happen next for assignments, so I thought it worth sharing.
Anyway, the story is here and if you're studying youth work it's worth a look. In related news, Sir Merrick Cockell, chairman of the Local Government Association (LGA) has gone on record here to highlight proposed council cuts and the likely effects this will have. It also mentions youth clubs as well as adult social care, libraries and child protection services. It makes for grim reading, but many of you require figures to back up what might happen next for assignments, so I thought it worth sharing.
Friday, 22 March 2013
The future of... well everything really
In a week where my favourite news story related to something that happened over 13 billion years ago, this seemed like the perfect time to also think about the future too. I haven't blogged about technology for a while (believe it or not, some people only subscribe for the occasional tech stuff I discuss) so this seemed like an opportunity to combine the two things.
But firstly, something about history. One of the things that librarians help to do is archive the past. We do this by maintaining manuscripts and collections, providing the public with access to all sorts of materials that can be of hugely important historical significance.
If you ever wonder if these things really matter can I recommend a film I saw last year. It details how the head librarian, along with others at the national library of Sarajevo, risked their lives again and again to save history books from being destroyed during the civil war in 1992. Their bravery quite frankly is hard to comprehend. YouTube, as so often, has provided me with the opportunity to say watch the film by clicking here. I hope you'll be astounded.
Now the technology bit. I read a great piece by John Naughton recently about how nothing lasts forever. He writes about technology for the Guardian. This is what got me thinking about the Sarajevo film and how we 'protect' the past. Facebook, as it is recognisable now, won't be around in 20 years. I'm so confident of that prediction I'm prepared to write it down. Time will naturally reveal all. I also think Google will one day be confined to history books. And that's where things get interesting. Because where will those history books be stored? They won't be on Google Books because it won't be there any more. The John Naughton article reports a meeting with representatives of Google and a librarian who was involved in the Google Books project. The librarian asked them 'what happens to all these digitised books when you're gone?' They were apparently stunned by the mere idea that Google would one day not exist.
That's the thing with librarians. We tend to ask awkward questions and expect other people to know the answers. So that's what I'm going to do now. When you buy an mp3, an e-book for your Kindle or a downloaded game for your xbox, are you thinking about how you'll access it 10 or 20 years from now when the hardware has long moved on?
The John Naughton piece is here.
If you'd like to have a chat about any of these things you know how to find me.
But firstly, something about history. One of the things that librarians help to do is archive the past. We do this by maintaining manuscripts and collections, providing the public with access to all sorts of materials that can be of hugely important historical significance.
If you ever wonder if these things really matter can I recommend a film I saw last year. It details how the head librarian, along with others at the national library of Sarajevo, risked their lives again and again to save history books from being destroyed during the civil war in 1992. Their bravery quite frankly is hard to comprehend. YouTube, as so often, has provided me with the opportunity to say watch the film by clicking here. I hope you'll be astounded.
Now the technology bit. I read a great piece by John Naughton recently about how nothing lasts forever. He writes about technology for the Guardian. This is what got me thinking about the Sarajevo film and how we 'protect' the past. Facebook, as it is recognisable now, won't be around in 20 years. I'm so confident of that prediction I'm prepared to write it down. Time will naturally reveal all. I also think Google will one day be confined to history books. And that's where things get interesting. Because where will those history books be stored? They won't be on Google Books because it won't be there any more. The John Naughton article reports a meeting with representatives of Google and a librarian who was involved in the Google Books project. The librarian asked them 'what happens to all these digitised books when you're gone?' They were apparently stunned by the mere idea that Google would one day not exist.
That's the thing with librarians. We tend to ask awkward questions and expect other people to know the answers. So that's what I'm going to do now. When you buy an mp3, an e-book for your Kindle or a downloaded game for your xbox, are you thinking about how you'll access it 10 or 20 years from now when the hardware has long moved on?
The John Naughton piece is here.
If you'd like to have a chat about any of these things you know how to find me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
