Search

Debates about how best to support students' transition from school to university have re-emerged periodically since at least the 1970s. This paper focuses upon one aspect of this transition: how to develop the quantitative skills students acquire at school throughout the first year of their degree. We report on an attempt to inject pedagogic innovation into the teaching of quantitative methods to first-year geography undergraduates at a large Russell Group university in the UK. More specifically, we report on moving to a pedagogic approach of student-centred, inquiry-based learning, which uses quantitative methods to investigate the issue of air pollution. We explore whether "statistical anxiety" is still a common experience of undergraduate geographers and the extent to which pedagogical innovation can help to alleviate this. Although the focus is on UK Geography, the paper has wider relevance to anywhere geographical research methods are taught. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores 'diary-keeping behaviour', or the ways in which participants conduct the completion and submission of diaries in diary research. There is a paucity of methodologically oriented literature on diary method and as such this article makes a contribution to extending the existing knowledge of this method. The primary aim of this article is to set out in detail the key issues relating to diary-keeping behaviour, in order to provide a foundation for future critical explorations of this facet of diary research. The research that this paper is based on involved a 12-month diary-interview study. This project explored the employability management of Chinese international Master's students in social sciences studying in the UK during one academic year. The article sets out key facets of diary-keeping behaviour and explores specific considerations for diary studies in higher education contexts, where diary research has been particularly neglected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper offers a provocation to the geographies of health in relation to one of our governing concepts, that of wellbeing. The paper brings together government survey data from the United Kingdom with other published research into a critical argument that the dominant ways of conceptualising and practising subjective wellbeing have become toxic and harmful to wellbeing outcomes. The paper argues that a 'hyper-individualised and thwarted self' and 'supermarket model' of social resources for individual wellbeing underpins the contemporary dominant understanding of subjective wellbeing. This approach neglects wider spatial and temporal considerations such as inequality, inter-generationality and sustainability, and the rise of wellbeing as a technology of soft capitalism. The paper discusses the potential for relational approaches from the social sciences to provide a more 'wholesome tonic' to current understandings of subjective wellbeing that might rehabilitate its capability to do helpful rather than harmful work and argues for an ethical obligation to sustain critical engagement. • The dominant understanding of subjective wellbeing creates negative consequences. • Direct effects reduce wellbeing; indirect effects neglect importance issues. • This dominant approach reflects and supports a political economy of soft capitalism. • Centring the relational, social and interdependent fails to gain policy traction. • Struggling to reframe subjective wellbeing is an ethical imperative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conditions under which people labour in mental health research affect how and what knowledge is produced – and who benefits or doesn't from involvement in health research systems. There has been, however, little sustained investigation of the uneven modalities of labour exploitation across what are increasingly financialised systems of mental health research. This theoretical paper advances conceptual and empirical investigations of labour in health research – outlining how material precarity and epistemic precarity often go hand in hand, and largely drawing on examples from the UK. The intertwining of labour relations and epistemic cultures can be understood by bringing together insights from two bodies of knowledge not commonly in contact with one another – survivor/service user research and critical research on universities and academic labour. The article addresses how mental health research makes significant use of the labour of (i) contract researchers (many of whom work on precarious and exploitative contracts); (ii) lay contributors (through 'patient and public involvement'); and (iii) research participants (where the conditions underpinning participation in various kinds of research increasingly blur the distinction between volunteering, and 'gig' work). Labour relations affect, and are affected by, efforts to change epistemic cultures and reduce epistemic inequalities, and epistemic and material precarity make efforts to improve research culture much more difficult. Those experiencing both material and epistemic precarity in health research systems need to be at the heart of efforts to combat both. • Labour conditions in mental health research affect how and what knowledge is produced. • Health research systems frequently rely on exploited labour. • Material and epistemic precarity frequently go hand in hand in mental health research. • Improving research cultures in mental health research demands addressing labour relations. • Those experiencing material/epistemic precarity should be core to improvement efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the politics of regulatory expansion within the diagnostics sector. Since 1990, an informal, clinician-led process of diagnostic innovation within the UK NHS has been challenged by new mechanisms for the evaluation of diagnostics. We describe these diagnostic reforms as a process of fragmented regulatory expansion. New governance mechanisms function as regulatory niches : discrete spaces within an overarching sociotechnical regime. The boundaries of regulatory niches are organisational and epistemological. Organisational boundaries map onto established communities of practice that constitute the regulatory target; epistemological boundaries are defined by distinctive evaluation frameworks. Niches are also distinguished by their outcomes (rate of positive decisions) and their origins. Niche formation was triggered by five drivers: public scandal; technological change; marketisation; institutional isomorphism; and transnational policy transfer. Each niche was triggered by a unique confluence of these drivers, but common to all were historic shifts in healthcare politics, as the rise of evidence-based medicine intersected with the centralising impulse of the regulatory state, which encroached on clinical autonomy in a contest for power that is increasingly mediated by influential non-governmental organisations. • Regulation of diagnostics in the UK has undergone a process of fragmented expansion. • Three "regulatory niches" have emerged since the 1990s. • Regulatory niches are discrete spaces within the overarching sociotechnical regime. • Each niche has specific organisational and epistemological boundaries. • They differ in outcomes (rates of regulatory approval) and origins. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we trace how mathematical models are made 'evidence enough' and 'useful for policy'. Working with the interview accounts of mathematical modellers and other scientists engaged in the UK Covid-19 response, we focus on two weeks in March 2020 prior to the announcement of an unprecedented national lockdown. A key thread in our analysis is how pandemics are made 'big'. We follow the work of one particular device, that of modelled 'doubling-time'. By following how modelled doubling-time entangles in its assemblage of evidence-making, we draw attention to multiple actors, including beyond models and metrics, which affect how evidence is performed in relation to the scale of epidemic and its policy response. We draw attention to: policy; Government scientific advice infrastructure; time; uncertainty; and leaps of faith. The 'bigness' of the pandemic, and its evidencing, is situated in social and affective practices, in which uncertainty and dis-ease are inseparable from calculus. This materialises modelling in policy as an 'uncomfortable science'. We argue that situational fit in-the-moment is at least as important as empirical fit when attending to what models perform in policy. • Pandemics are performed as crises of uncertain yet catastrophic potential. • Mathematical models are forms of scalar narrative affording epidemics their scale. • Models and projections are made useful as evidence in their situated policy events. • Calculations are given agency as affects in the evidencing of pandemics. • Modelling pandemics is a site of 'uncomfortable science' and 'dis-ease'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]