Latest research and knowledge exchange news at Bournemouth University
On the 23rd of May the Women’s Academic Network held their second international seminar ‘Reclaiming the academy: Scholarship, gender and consumerism’. Our international keynote speakers were Professor Maggie Berg from Queen’s University, Canada, and Professor Barbara Seeber from Brock University, also in Canada. Notably, Maggie and Barbara are the acclaimed authors of the extraordinary book The Slow Professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy. The audience was deeply absorbed by both their keynote speech and workshop, which outlined why ‘slowness’ in academia is vital to university life. We were dismayed to hear of the bizarre attacks made upon their work, in which sexism and gender oppression were clearly implicated, echoing one of the presentations on the silencing of women’s voices by our old colleague, Professor Heather Savigny of De Montford University. Yet Maggie and Barbara’s work speaks with the authority of deep scholarship and conviction and, as such, is generating great support globally. In this seaside corner of the world it has inspired research at BU among WAN members, along with international conference presentations and a forthcoming keynote speech for a DAKAM women’s studies conference in Turkey in December 2018 by Professor Sara Ashencaen Crabtree; and finally, a planned ESRC research bid.
The seminar was well attended by a mixed audience of internal and external academics and PGR, where we, WAN co-convenors, warmly welcomed the support of our good male colleagues in the capacity of presenters and participants. We heard some excellent presentations, culminating in an evocative social dreaming session by Anne-Marie Cummins and Dr Lita Crociani-Windland of the University of West of England. Thanks to our friend, Dr Ian Davies, colleagues and students from BU Music provided a superb finish to the day with beautiful singing and musical accompaniment and the whole event supported by the invaluable help of Sarah Cronin in OD.
The evaluations by participants were (gratifyingly) completely outstanding, encompassing without exception the two highest points of appreciation. Comments related to the excellence of the programme, the relevance of the topic to the audience and the warm collegiality experienced throughout the day. The only criticisms received was that maybe next time a 2-day event rather than 1 (noted, thanks) and that the rather ferocious air-conditioning needed taming (agreed).
Upon reflection the topic of the seminar appeared to hit a strongly vibrating chord in individual participants resonating with growing concern permeating the sector about the morphing and future of academia. For instance, it is disquieting to note from the research literature that the UK appears to be in the vanguard of adopting corporate values, systems and processes that have been critiqued in the literature as damaging to the ethos, the practices and environment of academia – not only harmful to academics in all ways but also to students in terms of their motivations towards and engagement with their studies, owing to the policy vectors influencing a flawed understanding of the purpose of academia, if viewed as purely instrumental. Yet we note that the HEI trends towards quasi-business models lags behind the realisation of actual business and entrepreneurial industries that the target-driven corporate model in fact damages innovation, commitment, creativity – and ultimately the health of employees. The gulf between privatised business models and academia are great and need to be recognised as such, as celebrated academics such as Stefan Collini and Frank Furedi make very clear. Writing in the Times Higher Education, the brilliant sociologist, Laurie Taylor (the caustic creator of the satirical ‘University of Poppleton’) sought to remind us a few years ago that just as good actors hold their allegiance to the concept of the ‘stage’, so too do academics owe theirs to that of ‘academia’ – not to any particular establishment.
This seminar was thus both timely and significant in allowing the topic to develop through inter-related themes and enabling us to recognised shared concerns and identify a corpus of collegial interest that bodes well for future research collaboration focusing on the threats towards, the defence of and the recreation of what academics really value together with the role of what flourishing university cultures contribute to society.
Sara Ashencaen Crabtree, Lorraine Brown, Frances Hawkhead & Jayne Caudwell
WAN Co-convenors
Planning Ahead – A Reminder (Staff & PGRs)
If you’re hoping to start data collection activities at the beginning of September and are in the process of completing your research ethics checklist, please remember that during August there are NO Research Ethics Panel Meetings. If you want to start your data collection activity in August/September, please submit your checklist in time for Panel meetings to be held in June or July. Checklists (for ‘above minimal risk’ projects) received during August will be deferred until the Panels reconvene in September (dates to be advised).
Reviews for low risk projects (Staff and Postgraduate Research) will continue as normal during August.
More details about the review process and Panel meeting dates can be found on the Research Ethics Blog. Email enquiries should be sent to researchethics@bournemouth.ac.uk.
Every BU academic has a Research Professional account which delivers weekly emails detailing funding opportunities in their broad subject area. To really make the most of your Research Professional account, you should tailor it further by establishing additional alerts based on your specific area of expertise. The Funding Development Team Officers can assist you with this, if required.
Research Professional have created several guides to help introduce users to ResearchProfessional. These can be downloaded here.
Quick Start Guide: Explains to users their first steps with the website, from creating an account to searching for content and setting up email alerts, all in the space of a single page.
User Guide: More detailed information covering all the key aspects of using ResearchProfessional.
Administrator Guide: A detailed description of the administrator functionality.
In addition to the above, there are a set of 2-3 minute videos online, designed to take a user through all the key features of ResearchProfessional. To access the videos, please use the following link: http://www.youtube.com/researchprofessional
Research Professional are running a series of online training broadcasts aimed at introducing users to the basics of creating and configuring their accounts on ResearchProfessional. They are holding monthly sessions, covering everything you need to get started with ResearchProfessional. The broadcast sessions will run for no more than 60 minutes, with the opportunity to ask questions via text chat. Each session will cover:
Each session will run between 10.00am and 11.00am (UK) on the fourth Tuesday of each month. You can register here for your preferred date:
These are free and comprehensive training sessions and so this is a good opportunity to get to grips with how Research Professional can work for you.
By clicking on this box, on the left of the Research Blog home page just under the text ‘Funding Opportunities‘, you access a Research Professional real-time search of the calls announced by the Major UK Funders. Use this feature to stay up to date with funding calls. Please note that you will have to be on campus or connecting to your desktop via our VPN to fully access this service.
Chris Miles, Senior Lecturer in Marketing & Communication in the Faculty of Media & Communication, has just published Marketing, Rhetoric and Control: The Magical Foundations of Marketing Theory (ISBN: 9781138667273). The 216 page monograph is the first book to be published in the new Routledge Studies in Marketing series.
Marketing, Rhetoric and Control investigates the tensions that surround the place of persuasion (and, more broadly, control) in marketing. Persuasion has variously been seen as an embarrassment to the discipline, a target for anti-marketing sentiment, the source of marketing’s value in the modern organisation, a mysterious black box inside the otherwise rational and logical endeavour of enterprise, and a rather insignificant part of the marketing programme. This book argues that this multifarious reputation for persuasion within marketing stems from the influence of two quite oppositional paradigms – the scientific and the magico-rhetorical – that ebb and flow across the discourses of its discipline and practice.
Constructing an interface between original, challenging close readings of texts from the beginnings of the Western rhetorical tradition and an examination of the ways in which marketing has set about describing itself, this text argues for a Sophistic interpretation of marketing. From this perspective, marketing is understood as providing intermediary services to facilitate the continuing exchange of attention and regard between firm/client and stakeholders. It seeks to manage and direct this exchange through an appreciation of the changing rational and irrational motivations of the firm and stakeholders, using these as resources for the construction of both planned and improvised persuasive interactions in agonistic (or competitive) environments.
The book is aimed primarily at researchers and academics working in the fields of marketing, marketing communications, and the related disciplines of marketing theory, critical marketing, and digital marketing. It will also be of value to marketing academics in business schools, including those working in the areas of media and communication studies who have an interest in commercial and corporate communication, brand use of interactive media, and communication theory.
One early review rave review from Prof. Stephen Brown of Ulster University states:
“There is nothing “mere” about rhetoric. Long demonised and often misrepresented, rhetoric is an ancient artform whose time has come. As Miles shows in this exemplary text, rhetoric is central to the modern marketing condition. Marketers’ seemingly magical ability to cast spells of delight, desire, distinction over delirious consumers is rooted in their rhetorical acumen. A sagacious review of the principal rhetorical traditions and a brilliantly-written reading of marketing principles and practices, Miles’ book is a rhetorical triumph. In a word, it’s magic!”
Link to the book’s page on the Routledge website:
Table of Contents:
Chapter 1 A History of Rhetoric for Marketers
Chapter 2 Marketing Scholarship and Rhetoric
Chapter 3 Control and the Discourse of Marketing Science
Chapter 4 A Rhetorical Approach to Marketing as Exchange
Chapter 5 Marketing and Sophism – a comparison
Chapter 6 Magic, Sympathy, and Language
Chapter 7 The Magical Roots of Rhetoric
Chapter 8 Magical Persuasion and Marketing
Chapter 9 A Sophistic Marketing
Chris Miles was co-convenor of the 1st International Symposium on Marketing (as) Rhetoric which was held last year at Bournemouth University. His research deals with the discursive construction of marketing theory and practice, particularly as it relates to communication and control. He also publishes in the areas of rhetoric, cybernetics, and alternative religion.
The UK National Commission for UNESCO, which is administrating the Newton Prize, is delighted to announce a great opportunity to be part of the Reviewer Team for the Newton Prize 2018.
The Newton Prize is a prestigious global award for research and innovation in developing countries. All the applicants this year are in partnership with South American Newton Fund projects with Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico.
UNESCO are looking for experts from industry and academia in the fields of Agriculture, the Built Environment, Economic Development, Education, Energy, Engineering, Environment, Health, Manufacturing, Sustainability and Technology. Reviewing takes place via an online portal which can be accessed at your convenience between 15 June and 31 July 2018. If you fit the bill or know someone who does, please register here.
Bournemouth University researchers picked up two prestigious awards at the International Communication Association (ICA) annual conference held in Prague, 24-28 May 2018. This is the largest communications conference in the world and highly competitive, so receiving recognition in the form of awards is a great honour.
Dr Nael Jebril was recognised for his co-edited book entitled Political Journalism in Comparative Perspectivethat won the Harvard International Journal of Press/ Politics best book award. This is a major honour and awarded by the top journal in the field of media and politics. Dr Jebril received the award with his co-editors, Prof Erik Albæk (University of Southern Denmark), Prof Arjen van Dalen (University of Southern Denmark), and Prof Claes H. de Vreese (Universiteit van Amsterdam).
Dr Emma Pullen, Dr Daniel Jackson, Prof Michael Silkand Dr Richard Scullion won the top faculty paper award for the Sports Communication division of ICA, for their paper entitled Giving Disability the ‘Hollywood Treatment’: Channel 4 and the Broadcasting of the Paralympic Games. This is their first output from the AHRC funded Paralympics project on the cultural legacy of the 2016 Rio Paralympics (grant ref: AH/P003842/1). Keep up to date with their progress via the project website www.pasccal.com, Twitter @pasccalproject, and the BU research blog.
Political Journalism in Comparative Perspective
Prof Erik Albæk, Prof Arjen van Dalen, Dr Nael Jebril, Prof Claes H. de Vreese
Political journalism is often under fire. Conventional wisdom and much scholarly research suggest that journalists are cynics and political pundits. Political news is void of substance and overly focused on strategy and persons. Citizens do not learn from the news, are politically cynical, and are dissatisfied with the media. This book challenges these assumptions, which are often based on single-country studies with limited empirical observations about the relation between news production, content, and journalism’s effects. Based on interviews with journalists, a systematic content analysis of political news, and panel survey data in different countries, this book tests how different systems and media-politics relations condition the contents of political news. It shows how different content creates different effects and demonstrates that under the right circumstances citizens learn from political news, do not become cynical, and are satisfied with political journalism.
Giving Disability the ‘Hollywood Treatment’: Channel 4 and the Broadcasting of the Paralympic Games
Dr Emma Pullen, Dr Daniel Jackson, Prof Michael Silk and Dr Richard Scullion
Studies that have critiqued para-sport broadcasting, particularly through a narrative lens, have almost exclusively relied on textual and/or content analysis of the Paralympic Games as the source of cultural critique. We know far less about the decisions taken inside Paralympic broadcasters that led to such representations. In this study – based on interviews with senior production and promotion staff at the UK’s Paralympic broadcaster, Channel 4 – we provide the first examination of mediated para-sport from this vantage point. We explore the use of controversial promotional devices such as athletes’ backstories – the “Hollywood treatment” – to hook audiences as a vehicle to achieving its social enterprise ambitions of changing public attitudes toward disability. In so doing, we reveal myriad tensions that exist within a Paralympic broadcaster as they attempt to balance the competing goals of key stakeholders with their own desire to make the Paralympics a commercial and socially progressive success.
Congratulations to current and past academics in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences and the Faculty of Science & Technology who contributed to the newly published Routledge Handbook of Well-Being. The editor Prof. Kate Galvin was previously based at Bournemouth University. She is currently Professor of Nursing Practice in the School of Health Sciences at the University of Brighton.
The following four chapters in the edited collection have been authored or co-authored by BU scholars and students past and present:
Congratulations to all!
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Dr Roger Herbert, Dr Alice Hall, Dave Parham & Prof Rick Stafford
Department of Life & Environmental Sciences, Department of Archaeology, Anthropology and Forensic Science.
Marine scientists in the Faculty of Science & Technology have been awarded a multidisciplinary four year (2017-21) EU Interreg project to design Artificial Reefs optimised for Atlantic waters. The main objective is to deploy and monitor artificial reef blocks that have been designed and fabricated using innovative 3D printing technology and sustainable, low-impact bio-receptive materials . Artificial Reefs (AR) in Europe have not been optimised for the Atlantic where they have potential application to mitigate for the loss of natural reef habitats and to enhance food production, coastal infrastructure and recreational amenity. 3D Printing technology offers considerable scope to increase the complexity of textures and voids and to create structures that could be replicated in large quantity.
The project is led by the University of Cantabria Department of Civil Engineering (Santander, Spain) who specialise in 3D Printing. The other main partners include Bournemouth University (Faculty of Science & Technology), CIIMAR (Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research, University of Porto, Portugal), IPMA (Portuguese Institute of Sea and Atmosphere), ESITC Caen Institute for Civil Engineering and Construction (Caen, France).
BU expertise includes the survey and monitoring of biological communities on natural and artificial reefs and will be involved in supporting data analysis and mapping activities, small-scale experimental deployments of different materials and will co-ordinate the design, fabrication and deployment of larger reef blocks across the transnational partnership. BU will also develop protocols to monitor the reef blocks and the collection and identification of biota. This will involve regular surveys including the use of SCUBA and drop-down cameras, data analysis and the presentation and dissemination of results through publications, organising workshops and meetings.
In the PM’s speech this week referred to below, she mentioned the implications of Brexit for research:
…. since 2010 the number of overseas students coming to study at UK universities has increased by almost a quarter. The UK will always be open to the brightest and the best researchers to come and make their valued contribution. And today over half of the UK’s resident researcher population were born overseas.
When we leave the European Union, I will ensure that does not change.
The UK is ready to discuss these details with the Commission as soon as possible.
Some more flesh was put on these bones by a policy paper from the Department for Existing the EU: Framework for the UK-EU partnership Science, research and innovation
The PM made a speech this week announcing 4 “missions” that sit below the Industrial Strategy with a focus on AI and data, amongst other things– you can read my blog of the highlights here
In related news, Innovate UK published a report on the immersive economy
And the government issued 4 calls for ideas and evidence on the PM’s 4 missions. They want new ideas here:
If you’d like to contribute to any of these, please contact policy@bournemouth.ac.uk
You can read BU’s response to the subject level TEF consultation here. We agree with the issues raised below and we advocated a new model because of serious problems with both Model A and Model B. We also suggested a longer time frame (because of the volume of work involved, not complacency), and disagreed with both grade inflation and teaching intensity metrics. And we challenged the awards at both institutional and subject level, proposing instead two awards (good and excellent/ excellent and outstanding) with stars for subjects.
Interesting developments for TEF (and more generally), the OfS have published their timetable for NSS and Unistats data for 2018:
And :
Research Professional have a neat summary of the sector response.
On Wonkhe:
From Dods: The Science and Technology Committee have published its report from the Algorithms in decision-making inquiry which acknowledges the huge opportunities presented by algorithms to the public sector and wider society, but also the potential for their decisions to disproportionately affect certain groups.
The report calls on the Centre for Data Ethics & Innovation – being set up by the Government – to examine algorithm biases and transparency tools, determine the scope for individuals to be able to challenge the results of all significant algorithmic decisions which affect them (such as mortgages and loans) and where appropriate to seek redress for the impacts of such decisions. Where algorithms significantly adversely affect the public or their rights, the Committee highlights that a combination of algorithmic explanation and as much transparency as possible is needed.
It also calls for the Government to provide better oversight of private sector algorithms which use public sector datasets, and look at how best to monetise these datasets to improve outcomes across Government. The Committee also recommends that the Government should:
Under the 10 minute rule, the Chair of the Education Committee Robert Halfon introduced legislation to give greater powers and resources to the Social Mobility Commission (SMC), the body set up to promote social justice. (Link here at 13.52.09pm). It will have its second reading on 15th June.
The Committee published a draft Bill in March alongside its report. In its report, the Committee called for the establishment of a new implementation body at the heart of Government to drive forward the social justice agenda.
And in the meantime, the Government have announced a recommendation for a new Chair. Dame Martina Milburn has spent 14 years as Chief Executive of the Prince’s Trust, supporting more than 450,000 disadvantaged young people across the country in that time, with three in four of these going on to work, education or training. She is also a non-executive director of the National Citizen Service and the Capital City College Group, and was previously Chief Executive of BBC Children in Need and of the Association of Spinal Injury Research, Rehabilitation and Reintegration.
From Dods: Last Friday the Science and Technology Committee announced that it intends to develop its own proposals for immigration and visa rules for scientists post-Brexit. This work follows the Government’s rejection of the Committee’s call for the conclusions of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) relating to science to be brought forward to form part of an ‘early deal’ for science and innovation.
The Committee published its report on “Brexit, Science and Innovation” in March, and has recently received the Government’s response. The report welcomed the Prime Minister’s call for a “far-reaching pact” with the EU on science and innovation and recommended that an early deal for science—including on the ‘people’ element—could set a positive tone for the rest of the trade negotiations, given the mutual benefits of cooperation on science and innovation for the UK and the EU.
The Committee will draw on the submissions to its previous Brexit inquiry and the sector’s submissions to the MAC to construct its proposals for the immigration system, but further input to this process is welcome on the following points:
Click here to view the updated consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.
To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk
JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER
Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer
Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk
The event is open to everyone with an interest in the arts, research and social action, regardless of their experience in the arts or academia. The jam-packed, interactive daytime programme at Falmer Campus will be followed by an evening spoken word and music show at the Latest Music Bar in Manchester Street, featuring performances from Kate Fox, Joelle Taylor, Jacob Sam-La Rose and Quiet Loner.
Tickets are only £35, including lunch, refreshments and all events.
For further information and to register, go to: https://blogs.brighton.ac.uk/carnivalofinvention/ or check out our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/collaborative.poetics/
The Centre of Postgraduate Medical Research & Education (CoPMRE) held its Spring Visiting Faculty Day at the Executive Business Centre. Fourteen posters (VF Programme Spring 2018) were presented showcasing the breadth of collaborative projects being undertaken by BU and local clinicians. The Best Poster prize was awarded to Dr Paul Whittington, Department of Computing & Informatics, Faculty of Science and Technology, for his presentation entitled Automatic Detection of User Abilities through the SmartAbility Framework. Professor Tamas Hickish, judge, felt that all the posters were excellent and address important health care issues. Paul’s poster was chosen as the research was generated by a deep understanding of disability, the use a mobile phone technology and generalisability to significant areas of health care need such as stroke and frailty. As such his work is scalable and feasible.
Visiting Faculty Days are a great opportunity to share innovative ideas and research. The event was very well received and links for possible further collaboration have already been formed as a result of networking. Our next Visiting Faculty Day will be held in December.
Thanks to the students, Alderney Hospital also expects to see a reduction in its food wastage figures which could lead to significant savings.
Click here to find out more about how the BU students carried out this transformation.
Mike Smith, Geograph.
The first review by a Bournemouth University academic in the prestigious journal American Anthropologist was published in its February issue. Dr. Sue Sudbury who is Principal Academic in Media Production reviewed the film ‘The Anthropologist’ [1]. She wrote in this Open Access review that this film raises many interesting issues about the role of the anthropologist and deftly illustrates the divide that exists when different cultures come together. Her conclusion of the review is that ‘The Anthropologist’ is an intriguing and memorable film about environmental anthropologists and the important work they do collecting and telling the stories of people whose lives are being reshaped by climate change. It is also about the relationship between female anthropologists and their daughters. As such, it does an important job of introducing the subject and will no doubt generate discussion, but it is not an anthropological film and doesn’t claim to be.
The second one, a book review this time, appeared this week in the June issue. Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen in Bournemouth University’s Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) reviewed the book Midwives and Mothers: The Medicalization of Childbirth on a Guatemalan Plantation by the American anthropologist Sheila Cosminsky [2]. He reminds the reader that some of the work in this book work has previously been published in articles, as clearly stated in the acknowledgments (p. xii). He highlights that “on reading the book I remembered with joy snippets from some of the articles on Doña María I read nearly thirty years ago while working on my PhD thesis.” Cosminsky does a great job of bringing together a lifetime of anthropological (field)work in a comprehensive and easy‐to‐read book.
It is not often that we see reviews written by BU staff in this impressive journal, let alone two in subsequent issues.
References:
All My Meeples
Our next Photo of the Week is Alexandra Alberda‘s photo of her drawing of people engaging with Graphic Medicine comics at a museum exhibition. This weekly series features photo entries taken by our academics, students and professional staff for our annual Research Photography Competition, which gives a glimpse into some of the fantastic research undertaken across the BU community.
Alexandra’s work takes Medical Humanities and Graphic Medicine into non-clinical and public settings where health related works are being engaged with presently. Her research furthers Medical Humanities’ engagement with public perceptions of health by expanding the critical vocabulary available to scholars through Comics Studies and curatorial practice. The space of the museum holds a social identity as upholding and defining culture and has a history of exhibiting works that relate to healthcare and the “ill” other/body. How do these bodies and the experiences they illustrate reach our own interpretations of illness, flesh bodies, and lived experiences? Alexandra’s PhD research focuses on these experiences as they are tied to exhibitions and museums, which creates three groups of ‘people’ to the research.
The first group (green) are the people that exist in the museum: viewers, artists, curators, and other museum staff. The second group (pink) are the people represented in the exhibition artwork: both fictional and non-fiction characters in the case of memoirs. Her research focuses on the relationships and engagement that happens between the first and second groups. The third group (orange) involves the relationships between my supervisors, and their expertise, and Alexandra. These relationships will translate into her professional practices and research skills.
—
Alexandra Alberda is a PhD researcher in the Faculty of Media and Communication at Bournemouth University. Her supervisors are Dr. Sam Goodman, Dr. Julia Round and Professor Michael Wilmore. She received her MA in Art History minoring in Sculptural Painting/Studio Art at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and BA in English and Art minoring in Honours, Art History and Writing at Briar Cliff University.
Find out more about the role that comics can play in the study and delivery of healthcare on the Graphic Medicine website here.
Nikodash/Shutterstock.com
By Rachel Moseley, Bournemouth University and Julie Kirkby, Bournemouth University
Diagnosing autism is expensive and time consuming, so a screening tool is used to filter out those people who are unlikely to be diagnosed as autistic. This is all well and good, but our latest research suggests that a widely used screening tool may be biased towards diagnosing more men than women.
Earlier studies have cast doubt on the ability of one of the leading screening tools, called Autism-Spectrum Quotient, to accurately identify people with autism. Our study decided to look at another screening tool that hasn’t yet been investigated: the Ritvo Autism Asperger Diagnostic Scale-Revised (RAADS-R), a widely used questionnaire for assessing autism in adults with average or above average intelligence.
We compiled the RAADS-R scores of over 200 people who had a formal diagnosis of autism. We compared scores between autistic men and autistic women on four different symptom areas: difficulties with social relationships, difficulties with language, unusual sensory experiences or motor problems, and “circumscribed interests” (a tendency to have very strong, fixed interests).
As there are known sex differences in these areas – for example, with women being better at hiding social and communicative difficulties, and men being more likely to show obvious, and hence easier to detect, circumscribed interests – we wanted to know whether RAADS-R was able to pick up these differences.
Read more:
Changing the face of autism: here come the girls
Our analysis showed that it didn’t: we found no sex differences in RAADS-R scores between autistic men and women in social relatedness, language and circumscribed interests.
A possible explanation for this result is that, since RAADS-R depends on people accurately judging and reporting their own symptoms, sex differences may only emerge when behaviour is diagnosed by an experienced clinician. Previous studies have shown that autistic people often lack insight into their own behaviour and find it difficult to report their own symptoms.
Another likely reason for finding no sex difference in autism traits is that this and most other studies only include autistic people who have received a formal diagnosis through assessment with the very tools and tests we are investigating. As diagnostic and screening tools (including RAADS-R) were developed with male samples, they are most likely to identify autistic women with the most male-like profiles.
This might explain why fewer women tend to be diagnosed. It could be, then, that the screening tests filter out all of the autistic women with more female-like autism traits, and the autistic women with more male-like traits go on to be diagnosed. Or it could be that the underlying sample is biased because the formal diagnostic tools select people with more male-like traits, and the screening tool merely reflects this underlying bias.
Our results could show that our sample didn’t represent a diverse range of autistic women, then. And this is a problem that affects all research on sex differences in autism.
Read more:
GPs urgently need training on autism
As more males than females have received a diagnosis of autism, many of the theories we have about autism are based on these diagnosed cases, and, as a result, may only apply to males. Likewise, as we base our screening tools and diagnostic tools on males who have been diagnosed, we may only pick up women who show male-like symptoms.
We could be missing the women who have very different, more female presentations of autism, but who still show the core features that are central to the diagnosis. These include problems with social interaction, communication and restricted behaviour and interests.
Because screening and diagnostic tests focus on the most common, male manifestations of these core symptoms, females tend to be overlooked. Circumscribed interests in males, for example, are more likely to be based on unusual topics, whereas girls and women may centre their interests on things like celebrities or fashion, only the intensity of the interest sets them apart from non-autistic females.
There was only one prominent sex difference that emerged in our study: autistic women reported more sensory differences and motor problems than autistic men. Sensory and motor symptoms are common in autism. People may be over or under sensitive to sights, sounds, touches, smells and tastes, and are often clumsy and poorly coordinated.
Some autistic people are sensitive to certain fabrics. Purino/Shutterstock.com
This self-reported finding, that women have more sensory and motor symptoms than men, needs to be investigated more thoroughly. However, it appears to be consistent with a few studies that have found that autistic women do have more sensory and motor symptoms than men.
If these types of symptoms are especially problematic for autistic women, they could be important for providing a diagnosis. Although RAADS-R measures sensory and motor symptoms, they play a very minor role in gold-standard diagnostic tests, such as the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule.
Efforts are now underway to develop screening tools that are better at identifying autism in females.
Diagnosis is important for autistic people for many reasons. For example, it is the only way they can access support services, such as dedicated support workers to help them with activities at home or in daily life. They might also receive financial support if they need it. (Unemployment affects most of the autistic population and may in part be due to high levels of mental illness in this group.)
Other people have spoken about how having a diagnosis has helped them understand the struggles they’ve faced in their lives – that these things weren’t their fault. And it has helped them meet other people who accept them for who they are.
Rachel Moseley, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Bournemouth University and Julie Kirkby, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Bournemouth University
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Image from startups.co.uk
Innovate UK has announced a new competitive scheme that takes a place-based approach to research and innovation funding, to support significant regional economic growth.
To be successful, applications must build on existing research and innovation capability and present a valid plan of new research and innovation activities. These should have a demonstrable impact on local economic growth.
Project consortia must be based within the project’s geographical area and have the support of a local civic leadership.
Projects can be led by either a UK based business or a UK publicly funded research organisation.
This first competition stage is an expression of interest (EOI). Consortia will set out plans for large collaborative proposals. Following assessment, successful EOIs will be selected to receive up to £50,000 in ‘seedcorn funding’ to further develop a proposal for a gull stage project.
Please see summary below:
Competition opens: Monday, 28th May 2018
Competition closes: Wednesday, 25th July 2018 (noon)
Funding available: up to £50,000 seedcorn funding for successful EOIs; full stage proposals between £10million and £50million
Project dates: June 2019 – April 2024
For more information, please see this link.
BU staff can login below:
BU Professor has been invited to a series of plenary and invited lectures.
Research reaching non-academic audiences
April’s Café Scientifique – Should we help machines understand and respond to our emotions?
Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) 2024 – 2 WEEKS LEFT
Working with The Conversation: online training session – Wednesday 8th May
Apply for up to £1,000 to deliver an event and take part in a national festival of public engagement with research
MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships 2024
Research Information Network
Horizon Europe News – December 2023