Category / Uncategorized

Sixteen Days of Activism: end violence against women

The start of 16 days of activism against Gender-based Violence commenced on 25th November 2020 on the day known as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. A report: UK Femicides 2009-2018 published on the 25/11/20 has revealed that the number of women killed each year by men has stayed the same at between 124 and 168. From 2009 to 2018 at least 1,425 women were killed by men in the UK. What do these figures mean? Sadly it translates as :

  • a man killed a woman every three days and
  • a woman was killed by a male partner or ex-partner every four days.

In addition, the methods used, the contexts in which women are killed and their relationship with the men who kill them have changed little over the ten-year period. Women are killed by their husbands, partners and ex-partners; by sons, grandsons and other male relatives; by acquaintances, colleagues, neighbours and strangers. The rate at which men kill women shows no sign of reducing. The report is dedicated to all those women with each one named. Every single woman and girl in this report mattered. The Femicide Census is a call to action for change. femicidecensus.org     

During these 16 days of activism what can we do? What is in no doubt is that ending violence against women is mine and your business, it’s everybody’s business. UN Women have ten suggestions in which we can make a difference:

  • Listen to and believe survivors
  • Teach the next generation and learn from them                                           
  • Call for responses and services fit for purpose
  • Understand consent
  • Learn the signs of abuse and how you can help
  • Start a conversation
  • Stand against rape culture
  • Fund women’s organizations
  • Know the data and demand more of it

https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2020/11/compilation-take-action-to-help-end-violence-against-women

Maternity Action Report

I attended a zoom meeting on the 25/11/20 hosted by Maternity Action (MA), which is the UK’s leading charity committed to ending inequality and improving the health and wellbeing of pregnant women, partners and young children – from conception through to the child’s early years. Part of their remit is the delivery of free, specialist advice through their telephone helplines, on employment rights, maternity pay and benefits. Maternity Action responds to 2,000 calls to their Maternity Rights Advice Line each year from women facing pregnancy discrimination at work or needing help understanding their employment rights. Shockingly, pregnant women or new mums experience high levels of discrimination and harassment, with circa 54,000 women losing their jobs each year as a direct result of pregnancy discrimination. One in 20 new mothers are made redundant during pregnancy, maternity leave or on their return to work.

The purpose of zoom meeting was to launch their latest report: Insecure Labour: the realities of insecure work for pregnant women and new mothers. The charity worked closely with University and College Union (UCU) and UNISON in the production of the report. For both these unions the recent growth in insecure work has been a major issue for their members. They and MA have defined insecure work to include zero hours contracts, short term/fixed term contracts, short hours contracts, agency, casual and seasonal workers and low paid ‘self-employed contracts. From a higher education sector perspective, the use of fixed term contracts has increased in recent years and described by them as ‘endemic’.

Insecure contracts are prevalent in many female dominated sectors such as social care work, education and retail. Men are not exempt from insecure work, however, overwhelmingly, women workers are hugely impacted, due to the effect that pregnancy and maternity leave have on women’s job security and incomes and the unequal sharing of care and domestic labour in the home. The gender pay gap continues because of the impact on women of insecure work and associated low pay

This research report therefore explores the impact of insecure work on the rights of pregnant women and new mothers at work. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with ten pregnant and or new mothers who were in insecure work and their occupations ranged from a postgraduate research fellow, a teaching associate at a HEI, an advertising agency and another working for the NHS. Their lived experience of seeking to negotiate a safe working environment, a secure income and fair treatment is explored and reported on. The full report is available below:  https://maternityaction.org.uk/research-insecure-labour/

One of the attendees on the MA zoom session was from the TUC and she brought our attention to a report they published in June this year: Pregnant and precarious: new and expectant mums’ experiences of work during Covid-19. In this report the TUC surveyed over 3,400 pregnant women and mums on maternity leave exploring their experiences of work during the pandemic.

In brief the survey highlighted the following points:

  • One in four pregnant women and new mums experienced unfair treatment or discrimination at work including being singled out for redundancy or furlough.
  • Pregnant women’s health and safety rights are being routinely disregarded, leaving women feeling unsafe at work or without pay when they are unable to attend their workplaces.
  • Low-paid pregnant women are almost twice as likely as women on median to high incomes to have lost pay and or been forced to stop work (either by being required to take sick leave when they were not sick or to take unpaid leave, start their maternity leave early or leave the workplace altogether) because of unaddressed health and safety concerns. 
  • 71 per cent of new mums planning to return to work in the next three months are currently unable to find childcare to enable them to do so.

For the full report please click on the link: https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-06/PregMatCovid-19.pdf

 

 

BU PIER contribute to research bid

Last week, A COST Action bid was submitted for consideration. It brought together 33 proposers from 21 countries to Reframe the dominant social narratives around Migration, Access to Health and Social Care, Democracy and Climate Action, using Care Ethics Philosophy, Theory and Practices. The network plans to centralise people with experience in partnerships with academics, arts practitioners and the media. PIER were asked to contribute as part of that process, funded by FHSS Pump Prime.

At Bournemouth University on 25th April 2019, a community meeting brought together people from BU PIER and volunteers from Hope for Food to talk about major societal challenges. The meeting was a demonstration of community involvement for a European network funding bid meeting to the COST Action stream. The application is based around renewing how major societal challenges are framed by using a different way of seeing and thinking about them with care. That application is a partnership between members of CERC: BU Dr Tula Brannelly, and Professor Carlo Leget at Utrecht University of Humanistic Studies and Professor Petr Urban from Prague.

If you would like to read more visit the Care Ethics Research Consortium website: https://care857567951.wordpress.com/2019/12/09/what-do-you-care-about-contributing-to-the-cost-action-stream/

Reflections following publication milestone

I feel very fortunate to have reached a significant milestone in publishing; 50 peer reviewed articles. I thought I would stop and reflect as over the years I have learnt a great deal. I don’t remember my first publication…why? Well I was one of a number of authors and didn’t complete the final write up, or submission process. Don’t get me wrong, it was a fantastic time for celebration, but I wasn’t aware of ‘the struggle’. My second I remember clearly. A systematic review as part of my PhD. A horrendously verbose, difficult to read and overall, poorly written article. The science was robust but the writing – fit for insomnia. It was also my introduction to peer reviewers. This paper took 6 submissions before it was fit for publishing (was the science robust?) and really tested resilience and perseverance. How could they not value/understand, or even just ‘get’ the importance of my article! Now some years older and perhaps wiser I have come to understand that this lack of valuing/understanding of the work comes from how I have written it. This realisation has very much changed my ‘approach’ to reading peer reviewed comments. The often personal feelings that are rattled by the comments, I believe should be taken as a lack of clarity in the writing – how can this be made clearer for potential non-experts in the field. This is the essence of my second learning point. When I stated writing for publication, I believed the aim was to try and sound as clever/intellectual as possible (was this imposter syndrome coming through?). This resulted in, again, poorly written articles with complex concepts made more complex, moving them further from the reader’s understanding of the work. Therefore, I believe that the simpler the writing the better, for clarity and understanding by the readers. I try to think how I can explain complex concepts in the simplest way to make the work more accessible to many more readers. The experts will always ‘get’ it. My final thoughts are to celebrate the success of each and every publication and any publication milestones, be it numbers, citations or impact. With that in mind I’m off for a beer. Cheers.

Research Assistant Post

A short-term position is required to help support a British Academy funded project. This is a BU contracted, part-time position, starting in early January 2021. It is essential that you have a very good working knowledge of NVivo.

Key duties include: the collection and analysis of corporate annual report; generating ‘word frequency’ analysis of reports using NVivo 12; presenting analysis using NVivo and Excel. Additional analysis may include gathering financial indicators from the Thomson Reuters database.

If you would like to find out more, please contact Dr John Oliver (FMC) at joliver@bournemouth.ac.uk

Congratulations to HSS doctoral students

Dear Colleagues,

It has been an amazing year for our doctoral students in the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences. In spite of all the challenges resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, we have had 13  students successfully complete their studies. We are so proud of them and at this time of year we would normally be celebrating at our Graduation ceremony in the Bournemouth International Centre. As graduation has been delayed, we thought we would celebrate with a “Wall of Success” – please follow the link to hear from our new ‘doctors’ about their experiences and from our supervisors about why these graduands are such great ambassadors for Bournemouth University.

With best wishes,

Professor Vanora Hundley

BU researchers publish U.S. election analysis report within 11 days of vote

We are delighted to announce the publication of U.S. Election Analysis 2020: Media, Voters and the Campaign
Featuring 91 contributions from over 115 leading US and international academics, this publication captures the immediate thoughts, reflections and early research insights on the 2020 U.S. presidential election from the cutting edge of media and politics research. It is a collaboration between BU academics, American University, and Kent State University, in partnership with the Political Studies Association, American Political Science Association and the International Political Science Association.

Published within eleven days of the election, these contributions are short and accessible. Authors provide authoritative analysis – including research findings and new theoretical insights – to bring readers original ways of understanding the campaign. Contributions also bring a rich range of disciplinary influences, from political science to cultural studies, journalism studies to geography.
In 24 hours, the report website has already had over 5000 hits and has been featured by Nieman Lab.
As always, these reports are free to access.
The report can be found on https://www.electionanalysis.ws/us/ alongside our previous reports on UK and U.S. elections.
Direct pdf download is available at:  http://j.mp/USElectionAnalysis2020_Jackson-et_al_v1  (please note, large file size!)
The table of contents is below.
1. Introduction 
Daniel Jackson, Danielle Sarver Coombs, Filippo Trevisan, Darren Lilleker and Einar Thorsen

Policy and Political Context

2. The far-too-normal election 
Dave Karpf
3. One pandemic, two Americas and a week-long election day 
Ioana Coman
4. Political emotion and the global pandemic: factors at odds with a Trump presidency 
Erik P. Bucy
5. The pandemic did not produce the predominant headwinds that changed the course of the country 
Amanda Weinstein
6. Confessions of a vampire 
Kirk Combe
7. COVID-19 and the 2020 election 
Timothy Coombs
8. President Trump promised a vaccine by Election Day: that politicized vaccination intentions 
Matthew Motta
9. The enduring impact of the Black Lives Matter movement on the 2020 elections 
Gabriel B. Tait
10. Where do we go from here? The 2020 U.S. presidential election, immigration, and crisis 
Jamie Winders
11. A nation divided on abortion? 
Zoe Brigley Thompson
12. Ending the policy of erasure: transgender issues in 2020 
Anne C. Osborne
13. U.S. presidential politics and planetary crisis in 2020 
Reed Kurtz
14. Joe Biden and America’s role in the world 
Jason Edwards
15. President Biden’s foreign policy: engagement, multilateralism, and cautious globalization 
Klaus W. Larres
16. Presidential primary outcomes as evidence of levels of party unity 
Judd Thornton
17. A movable force: the armed forces voting bloc 
Amanda Weinstein
18. Guns and the 2020 elections 
Robert Spitzer
19. Can Biden’s win stop the decline of the West and restore the role of the United States in the world? 
Roman Gerodimos

Voters

20. A divided America guarantees the longevity of Trumpism 
Panos Koliastasis and Darren Lilleker
21. Cartographic perspectives of the 2020 U.S. election 
Ben Hennig
22. Vote Switching From 2016 to 2020 
Diana Mutz and Sam Wolken
23. It’s the democracy, stupid 
Petros Ioannidis and Elias Tsaousakis
24. Election in a time of distrust 
John Rennie Short
25. Polarization before and after the 2020 election 
Barry Richards
26. The political psychology of Trumpism 
Richard Perloff
27. White evangelicals and white born again Christians in 2020 
Ryan Claassen
28. Angry voters are (often) misinformed voters 
Brian Weeks
29. A Black, Latinx, and Independent alliance: 2020 
Omar Ali
30. Believing Black women 
Lindsey Meeks
31. The sleeping giant awakens: Latinos in the 2020 election 
Lisa Sanchez
32. Trump won the senior vote because they thought he was best on the economy – not immigration 
Peter McLeod
33. Did German Americans again support Donald Trump? 
Per Urlaub & David Huenlich

Candidates and the Campaign

34. The emotional politics of 2020: fear and loathing in the United States 
Karin Wahl-Jorgensen
35. Character and image in the U.S. presidential election: a psychological perspective 
Geoffrey Beattie
36. Branding and its limits 
Ken Cosgrove
37. Celtic connections: reading the roots of Biden and Trump 
Michael Higgins and Russ Eshleman
38. Kamala Harris, Bobby Jindal, and the construction of Indian American identity 
Madhavi Reddi
39. Stratagems of hate: decoding Donald Trump’s denigrating rhetoric in the 2020 campaign 
Rita Kirk and Stephanie Martin
40. Campaign finance and the 2020 U.S. election 
Cayce Myers
41. The Emperor had no clothes, after all 
Marc Hooghe
42. Trump’s tribal appeal: us vs. them 
Stephen D. Reese

News and Journalism

43. When journalism’s relevance is also on the ballot 
Seth C. Lewis, Matt Carlson and Sue Robinson
44. Beyond the horse race: voting process coverage in 2020 
Kathleen Searles
45. YouTube as a space for news 
Stephanie Edgerly
46. 2020 shows the need for institutional news media to make racial justice a core value of journalism 
Nikki Usher
47. Newspaper endorsements, presidential fitness and democracy 
Kenneth Campbell
48. Alternative to what?A faltering alternative-as-independent media 
Scott A. Eldridge II
49. Collaboration, connections, and continuity in media innovation 
Valerie Belair-Gagnon
50. Learning from the news in a time of highly polarized media 
Marion Just and Ann Crigler
51. Partisan media ecosystems and polarization in the 2020 U.S. election 
Michael Beam
52. What do news audiences think about ‘cutting away’ from news that could contain misinformation? 
Richard Fletcher
53. The day the music died: turning off the cameras on President Trump 
Sarah Oates
54. When worlds collide: contentious politics in a fragmented media regime 
Michael X. Delli Carpini
55. Forecasting the future of election forecasting 
Benjamin Toff
56. A new horse race begins: the scramble for a post-election narrative 
Victor Pickard

Social media

57. Media and social media platforms finally begin to embrace their roles as democratic gatekeepers 
Daniel Kreiss
58. Did social media make us more or less politically unequal in 2020? 
Dan Lane and Nancy Molina-Rogers
59. Platform transparency in the fight against disinformation 
Valerie Belair-Gagnon, Bente Kalsnas, Lucas Graves and Oscar Westlund
60. Why Trump’s determination to sow doubt about data undermines democracy 
Alfred Hermida
61. A banner year for advertising and a look at differences across platforms 
Markus Neumann, Jielu Yao, Spencer Dean and Erika Franklin Fowler
62. How Joe Biden conveyed empathy 
Dorian Davis
63. The debates and the election conversation on Twitter 
G.R. Boynton and Glenn W. Richardson
64. Did the economy, COVID-19, or Black Lives Matter to the Senate candidates in 2020? 
Heather K. Evans and Rian F. Moore
65. Leadership through showmanship: Trump’s ability to coin nicknames for opponents on Twitter 
Marco Morini
66. Election countdown: Instagram’s role in visualizing the 2020 campaign 
Terri L. Towner and Caroline L. Munoz
67. Candidates did lackluster youth targeting on Instagram 
John Parmelee
68. College students, political engagement and Snapchat in the 2020 general election 
Laurie L. Rice and Kenneth W. Moffett
69. Advertising on Facebook: transparency, but not transparent enough 
Jennifer Stromer-Galley, Patricia Rossini, Brian McKernan and Jeff Hemsley
70. Detecting emotions in Facebook political ads with computer vision 
Michael Bossetta and Rasmus Schmøkel

Popular culture and public critique

71. On campaigns and political trash talk 
Michael Butterworth
72. It’s all about my “team”: what we can learn about politics from sport 
Natalie Brown-Devlin and Michael Devlin
73. Kelly Loeffler uses battle with the WNBA as springboard into Georgia Senate runoff 
Guy Harrison
74. Made for the fight, WNBA players used their platform for anti-racism activism in 2020 
Molly Yanity
75. Do National Basketball Association (NBA) teams really support Black Lives Matter? 
Kwame Agyemang
76. The presidential debates: the media frames it all wrong 
Mehnaaz Momen
77. Live… from California, it’s Kamala Harris 
Mark Turner
78. Who needs anger management? Dismissing young engagement 
Joanna Doona
79. Meme war is merely the continuation of politics by other means 
Rodney Taveira
80. Satire failed to pack a punch in the 2020 election 
Allaina Kilby
81. Election memes 2020, or, how to be funny when nothing is fun 
Ryan M. Milner and Whitney Phillips

Democracy in crisis

82. Social media moderation of political talk
Shannon McGregor
83. The speed of technology vs. the speed of democracy 
Ben Epstein
84. The future of election administration: how will states respond?
Jennifer L. Selin
85. How the movement to change voting procedures was derailed by the 2020 election results 
Martin P. Wattenberg
86. From “clown” to “community”: the democratic potential of civility and incivility 
Emily Sydnor
87. Searching for misinformation 
David Silva
88. Relational listening as political listening in a polarized country 
Kathryn Coduto
89. QAnon, the election and an evolving American conservativism 
Harrison Lejeune
90. President Trump, disinformation, and the threat of extremist violence 
Kurt Braddock
91. The disinformed election 
Saif Shahin
92. Election 2020 and the further degradation of local journalism 
Philip Napoli

We hope you enjoy reading it.
Dan, Danielle, Filippo, Darren and Einar

Midwifery education publication published today

Congratulations to Prof. Sue Way, Dr. Luisa Cescutti-Butler and Dr. Michelle Irving on the publication today of their latest article ‘A study to evaluate the introduction of the Newborn Infant Physical Examination knowledge and skills into an undergraduate pre-registration midwifery education programme’ [1].  This paper published in  Nurse Education Today  uses the principles of FUSION, bring together Education (undergraduate midwifery education), Practice (examination of the newborn) and Research (evaluation study).  This paper adds to the growing list of publication on aspects of midwifery education by academics in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perintal Health (CMMPH).

 

Congratulations!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

Reference:

  1. Way, S., Cescutti-Butler, L., Irving, M. (2020) A study to evaluate the introduction of the Newborn Infant Physical Examination knowledge and skills into an undergraduate pre-registration midwifery education programme, Nurse Education Today, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104656.

 

New Open Access chapter: Real-Time, Real World Learning—Capitalising on Mobile Technology

Published today, a new Open Access text on Applied Pedagogies for Higher Education includes my chapter on Real-Time, Real World Learning—Capitalising on Mobile Technology.

This chapter explores the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies to promote active learning by students and to both mediate and enhance classroom instruction – a timely contribution in the current teaching climate. I also introduce the concept of Actually Active Learning, which not only motivates students to engage meaningfully in their learning but also encourages them to be physically active, increasing their physical activity levels – a significant element given current health trends.

Real-Time, Real World Learning—Capitalising on Mobile Technology

Walking interviews as an adapt for qualitative research in the time of Covid

There are many posts at the moment about moving qualitative research online, but this does not always work for some marginalised groups, for example those without access to computers or computing skills. One method may be going out walking with people. Tula Brannelly and Ruth Bartlett used this methodology in a project about GPS technologies with people with dementia and in their new paper argue that it enabled greater participation and positioned people with dementia as guides in the research. And yes, it was throughout the winter in England!

As this is a newly published paper, hot off the press, there are free imprints here: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/5FUZQ4FEMVWBNHW8RRR2/full?target=10.1080/17496535.2020.1839115

UN Special Rapporteur commends Bournemouth University Mass Grave Research

Dr Agnes Callamard, UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions suggests ‘technical standards are needed to help strengthen protection and preservation of mass grave sites’ and goes on to commend the efforts currently underway at Bournemouth University to produce such Guidelines [para 65]. Her report, presented to the UN on 27 October 2020, adopts the definition of mass graves offered by Klinkner and Smith in the forthcoming Bournemouth Protocol on Mass Grave Protection and Investigation [para 12].

In her report Dr Callamard stresses the importance of respectful, indiscriminate and dignified handling of human remains from mass grave sites. The AHRC funded Mass Grave Protection for Truth & Justice Project investigates how best to safeguard, protect and investigate mass graves to ensure truth and justice for survivor populations. Research by BU scholars Klinkner, Davis and Smith in relation to mass graves, international criminal investigations, and the right to the truth is referenced seven times in the report.

Mass grave investigation research has a tradition at Bournemouth University. In 2008, a publication directed by scholars at Bournemouth University presented a first compilation of the experiences and lessons learned from the scientific investigation of mass graves. The Bournemouth Protocol, due to be published before the end of 2020, will offer a much needed, original instrument combining international law (international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law) governing the protection and investigation of mass graves with practical consideration and ramifications for stakeholders on the ground that seek to protect, manage and, where possible, investigate those sites.