Podcasts about Empirical research

Can artificial intelligence transform how we navigate the most challenging dialogues on campus? Join us for a thought-provoking episode featuring philosopher and educator Simon Cullen, as he unveils his pioneering work at the intersection of education, technology, and constructive disagreement.In conversation with John Tomasi, Simon explores how open inquiry is both advanced and imperiled by disagreement, and describes his academic journey from Australia to Princeton and Carnegie Mellon. Central to the discussion is ‘Sway' an AI-powered platform developed by Simon and his team to foster rigorous, evidence-based dialogue among students on controversial topics. Sway intelligently pairs students with opposing views and acts as a “guide on the side,” scaffolding reasoning, encouraging intellectual humility, and ensuring that exchanges remain constructive and charitable. Simon shares the empirical findings from thousands of Sway-mediated dialogues, where measurable increases in students' openness, comfort, and analytical reasoning have been observed—even on divisive subjects like gender, immigration, and the Israel-Palestine conflict. In This Episode:

I put AI to the test at one of the world's largest marketing conferences, Inbound 2024. This episode dives into the surprising results of my experiment and what they mean for the future of marketing.  You'll learn: Why AI-generated content is seen as error-free (feat. 2022 study by Henestrosa et al.). How AI compares to humans in persuading consumers (feat. 2023 meta-analysis). Why strong positioning, like Wistia's, is key to beating AI at its own game. The marketing tasks most at risk of being taken over by AI (feat. 2024 survey). A senior marketer's take on whether AI could ever replace humans (feat. Richard Truncale). ---- Sign up to my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew-22213187/ Watch Nudge on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@nudgepodcast/ ---- Sources:  Henestrosa, A. L., Greving, H., & Kimmerle, J. (2022). Automated journalism: The effects of AI authorship and evaluative information on the perception of a science journalism article. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, 107445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107445 Huang, G., & Wang, S. (2023). Is artificial intelligence more persuasive than humans? A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 73(6), 552–562. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqad024 Kasumovic, D. (2024). Artificial intelligence (AI) marketing benchmark report: 2024. Influencer Marketing Hub. https://influencermarketinghub.com/ai-marketing-benchmark-report/ Shotton, R. (2023). The illusion of choice: 16 ½ psychological biases that influence what we buy. Harriman House. Chan, W. T. Y., & Leung, C. H. (2018). An empirical study on reverse psychology applied in advertising messages. Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 8(9), 321–329. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.1007/2018.8.9/1007.9.321.329

How are victims of intimate partner violence meant to protect themselves—and, often, their children—without winding up dead, in hospital, or prison? It's a situation that many find themselves in. Approximately 15 percent of women in the United States are victims of intimate partner violence, according to the National Domestic Violence Hotline. But the legal system is not set up to help them. In this episode the executive director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Debbie Mukamal, and Stanford Law student Jacqueline Lewittes join Pam and Rich to discuss the Center's new study “Fatal Peril: Unheard Stories from the IPV-to-Prison Pipeline and Other Stories Touched by Violence,” that offers groundbreaking data and personal stories from women currently in prison because of intimate partner violence. They also touch on the systemic failures in the justice system in handling these complex cases.  Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Debbie Mukamal  >>> Stanford Law School PageFatal Peril: Unheard Stories from the IPV-to-Prison Pipeline >>> Stanford Law School Page(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introductions and Goals of the Research Hosts Pam Karlan and Rich Ford discuss how the project on women incarcerated for killing their abusers began during the pandemic, sparked by a lack of national data on these cases with Debbie Mukamal and SLS student Jacqueline Lewittes. Mukamal explains how her team's long-standing relationships with the California Department of Corrections facilitated their research access despite COVID-19 restrictions.(00:04:12) Chapter 2: Research Design and Challenges The team outlines the complexities of designing the study, including broadening the focus beyond intimate partner killings and overcoming barriers like accessing reliable court records. They explain how they relied on direct interviews and used validated tools like the Danger Assessment and Composite Abuse Scale to assess the severity of abuse.(00:08:42) Chapter 3: Striking Findings and Legal Implications Explore key findings, including the prevalence of traumatic brain injuries among respondents and the failure of self-defense laws to protect abused women. Jacqueline highlights a specific case that illustrates how memory loss due to abuse complicates self-defense claims, underscoring the systemic legal failures.(00:18:30) Chapter 4: The Role of Intimate Partner Violence in Homicide CasesThe group delves into the startling statistics of women convicted of homicide in connection to intimate partner violence. Debbie Mukamal discusses how nearly 74% of women in their study had experienced abuse at the time of the offense, breaking down the subcategories of cases, from those who killed their abuser to others involving child fatalities.(00:21:25) Chapter 5: Systemic Failures in Protecting Abuse VictimsExamine the various ways in which the legal system fails to protect women who are victims of abuse. From denied protective orders to mistreatment by police and ineffective legal defense, the discussion highlights the failures at multiple levels and the resulting harsh sentences.(00:23:55) Chapter 6: Law Reform and the Impact of Trauma on Legal CulpabilityThis segment focuses on potential legal reforms, including changes to homicide statutes and the need for better understanding of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in abuse survivors. Debbie Mukamal and Pam Karlan discuss the implications of TBI on a woman's ability to recall facts, and how reforms could better account for their experiences.

In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo sits down with Daniel Armanios, BT Professor of Major Programme Management and Chair of Major Programme Management at University of Oxford, Saïd Business School. The pair discuss the importance of research, the type of valuable research and the post evaluation of major programmes."And so a second very cool question would be where do we want resilience in a major programme? I mean, obviously you want it within the program but do you want it in the selection process? Maybe not? Do you want it in the post validation where we don't do as well? Maybe not so maybe resilience is not great everywhere. And maybe it's really important in certain places.  I've been really thinking about this a lot because it's a really visceral fundamental point. What is it we're actually doing and trying to achieve?" – Daniel ArmaniosDaniel's research and teaching integrates civil engineering and organizational sociology to better understand how organizations coordinate to build, manage, and maintain infrastructure systems. His findings inform efforts to advance sustainable development, entrepreneurship, and innovation, while also alleviating systemic and persistent inequities within such systems.Key Takeaways:The distinction of megaprojects and major programmesThe importance of transparent assumptions and data research in major programmesStudying major programmes at a component levelWhere do we want resilience in major programmes?If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox.The conversation doesn't stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:Follow Navigating Major Programmes on LinkedInFollow Riccardo on LinkedInFollow Daniel Armanios on LinkedInDaniel Armanios' published workRead Riccardo's latest at wwww.riccardocosentino.comTranscript:Riccardo Cosentino 0:53Hello, everyone. Today here with Daniel Armanios. How are you doing Daniel?Daniel Armanios 1:01Hey, how are you, Riccardo? Pleasure to be here.Riccardo 1:03Daniel joins us today from Oxford. Could you introduce yourself a little bit for the listeners that might not be familiar with yourself?Daniel 1:12I'm the BT Professor and Chair of Major Programme Management at the Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford. I was formerly in a school of engineering, which I'm sure will be a fun discussion later on. I was an assistant and associate professor in the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. I guess the best way very symmetrically, to understand myself and my research, I'm really an organizational theorist that studies how organizations coordinate to roll out to develop to maintain very large-scale initiatives, what some call major programmes, some call major projects, some called mega projects, I'm sure we can get to discussion of the nuances and differences. But essentially, I'm an organizational studies theorist that studies large-scale initiatives in engineering social programs and the like, and kind of published widely as a result.Riccardo  2:14I've come across you, as I was finishing my master's in Major Programme Management at Oxford, you were starting, your chair. And I've been very keen to be talking to you because obviously, we represent is such a big institution with so much gravitas in the major programme space, I was really looking forward to talking to you. So today, I think the overarching topic that I would like to cover today, I think is the importance of research in major programme and the importance of research in creating better outcomes for four major programmes. That's just the general theme, but I'm sure we can get into a more detailed conversation. From your perspective, why is research important to achieve better outcomes in major programme? Why can't the private sector and practitioners just get on with it? And then it's a bit of a leading question.Daniel 3:09There is attention always with major programmes, right? All of us, I mean, all of us who research it or those who put it in practice, especially since we don't often find ourselves in a position, practitioners, to manage large-scale major programmes, the temptation as we've seen from a lot of prior work is that this is such a unique thing and this is so it's so important and of you know, call it an n-of-one. And I think there is some aspects of every major programme that have nuance. But often, you know, when you're trying to start something, it's nice to know, where what we know systematically from prior things, and that just simply requires data analysis, right? How do you how can you empirically as best as you can, with data, collecting it, being transparent about your assumptions, transparent of what you found? Could that at least get us at a starting point, with a major programme we take on in the future? And so I think, empirically, it's quite important. That said, and maybe why there's difficulties is that there's also challenges with trying to do that data. I don't know if that's where we're gonna go next. But essentially, you know, a lot of this requires post evaluation of major programmes. And often, once you've delivered a major programme, you kind of want to be done and move on to the next one, but often that post hoc evaluation really matters. So if we take an empirically driven approach, it also fundamentally changes how we think of the entire major programme lifecycle, we're not just thinking about the planning, delivery, and then kind of the handover to the sponsor, whoever is going to operate the system, but also thinking post evaluation. What did it move? Did the needle move in certain ways? How can we learn from past? So it does require data. And then also the other challenge is as we build consensus for certain models and frameworks, there is a danger that we go flip the pendulum the complete other way, which is certain kinds of tools, techniques become the way to do things. And I think, at the same time, you want to balance between what were the conditions that allow those things to happen. So kind of long story short, we need an empirical basis by which to inform our decisions so that we truly know what is unique about the program we're managing versus what we know about the past, ideally, with comparative groups. But that means that we make sure that in our own major programme lifecycle we build in faculties and facilities and capacity to contribute existing data. And that requires a little different thinking about when the major programme, let's say, quote-unquote "ends". And at the same time, you know, to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, you also want to be able to say, really not just the data you gather on the programme itself, but the conditions around it so we can see what kinds of tools, what kind of approaches work for what kind of conditions so that you can be both empirically informed, but also nuances to where those empirical data and insights match with the kind of context you're in. And that's a I think a wider conversation happening.Riccardo  6:44I want to dive into a couple of things that you mentioned. First of all, obviously, the uniqueness of program management, of major programmes are, obviously, they're so big that it's difficult to have two running in parallel or being able to test in practice these major programmes. However, what's your view on the fact that yeah, maybe the major programme is unique, and because it's big and complex, and it's very dependent on the region, and other factors, but the sub-elements of the programme are actually repeating across multiple programmes. So you know, you have stakeholders on every single programme, you have a project sponsor on every single programme, you have group of people, subcontractor, supply chain, I mean, those things are not unique. And so I think you talk about the conditions, I think that's part of that. So is there a way of studying major programmes at the component level, which I think is that what we tend to do in the MMPM is really break it down and applying knowledge to the single components. What's your view?Daniel 8:05I think, an emerging trend, which is typically up to this point, my read is when we think of large-scale initiatives or big things, let's say, there's we usually treat major programmes and let's say mega projects or major projects as synonymous terms and I think if you see where major programmes is going, they're increasingly more distributed. So if you look at major initiatives around cryptocurrency, blockchain, it's not like there's a central convener that can move things, right? If you think of modular infrastructure construction, you're literally fabricating skews one place, putting it another place. Right? And so you're dealing with a more distributed, more decentralized system. And I think that's now creating some interesting divergence between mega projects and major programmes because when you think of mega projects, you're thinking of it as a unitary, kind of whole, because at some point, even though there's multiple organizations, you'll convene at some centralized sites. That's at least the assumption. With major programmes, if you think of it, it's more of a portfolio, which precisely gets to your point, then it becomes interesting to think of two things. One is, let's break up the bit of components and see is there something we can learn repeatable within the components? But also, is there some nuance we can understand of how things link together in appropriate ways? Should we modularize as one argument is or should we think of it more holistically as a system? Now how do I land on what we can learn is I think the research to date of that resources available, it's often focused on the intended plan or outcome for the project. And usually it's the Iron Triangle- time, cost, scope or quality, if you will, and did it achieve that or not why or why not? Let's account for these overruns. So it's more about the ends, right? So I've said this was gonna be my end, let's check at the end of the project. Did we achieve it? Now, empirically, that has some really useful facets, which is, you kind of comparing a project to itself, which is really nice. You can do comparisons, you get a sense of maybe how to help with the planning, how to avoid some of what to build in. But the process of learning by which we could have reconciled some of these overruns is a bit more difficult. So I think there's a set of resources focusing on the ends, right, in learning, I think, where you're coming from, to understand what is repeatable, repeatable is a process. So I think where some other research is going and where I've been interested in is just chronically what people are doing over time. Can we find patterns? Is there a way to go about effective stakeholder engagement? Not did we get stakeholders' approval in the audit, and it's more of the outcome? It's more how did we go through it? Was it, you know, were there certain things you did at certain times bring in certain organizations? Was that effective as opposed to not because then at that point, you can give something really useful to the manager that they can actually act as opposed to? Here's outcomes you want to worry about, we know that there's going to be this potential slippage, let's account for it in the planning. But that doesn't get much information in the process. So I think there's a lot of potential empirical research to be done on can we come up with replicable methods, means, while also being mindful of, you know, some of the risks calamities that have happened from the ends. And then that way, you really understanding what's repeatable, and not just, you got something that was effective and here's the practice. But how did that unfold over time and change? So you can still be quite repeatable. But recognizing repeatability is a process, right? And so maybe there's process models we can do, looking at projects at different slices of the timeframe. And then we can think about what it is they're doing over time? And is there some sequences that we can learn that are repeatable, that go well, or when you start hitting a fall, and then that way, as a kind of final point, if we can do that, then perhaps we can even develop early warning signs, you know, always at this step two of the process, there is something where things derail, avoid them, and you can start seeing the early warning signs. And that way, I think you can still come up with something repeatable, but more in the means of something you can action, as opposed to just be aware that these things go there's slippage overall in the project plan for it, which is important. Don't get me wrong. But then we could develop a process by which are early warning signs to develop. And that gray area is a different kind of empirical approach. But in that sense, you could then sort of see what is repeatable? What's even automatable? If we talk about future trends and what are things you need to be like spinning time on the critical path to be careful on? So research on the means, I think would be where things I think should be going and are starting to go as opposed to just the outcomes.Riccardo  13:23I think you mentioned a couple of times is historically we always focus on the postmortem. And typically a postmortem on things that went badly. And so you have this back, back catalogue of project that went bad, but there's very few post mortem on project that went well, because ultimately if you went well, you don't have to, you don't have to worry about it. I think that has been the approach. And as you said, with this, I think the problem with major project or large, large ventures is that they're so time-consuming and so draining that when you're done, you're done. You just want to move on.Daniel 14:03I would say on this point, actually, this is where it gets really interesting in the research, to compare the trends and major programme research, mega project research of again, I see a distinct what's you know, it's in a class versus how entrepreneurship research is. So entrepreneurship research suffers almost from the exact opposite issue, which is, they always focus on the big successful ones. And the failures are kind of not known because they're kind of censored out of the population before you can really study them. Right? And so you have a kind of a success bias there. In major programmes, because the ones that keep going on they keep taking more cost of you get these kinds of epic failures that are doing. And I think it's really important to be mindful is why it could be that there's some very successful projects that did the same exact thing as some of the failures and didn't have that result. The same thing with success with ventures, maybe someone really failed trying everything and didn't work out. So, again, this gets back to the first problem we were talking about, which is, if we can compare success with failure and really address that kind of empirical bias, then we can really see what is common across all projects? And where are they really different? Where is it really unique this one, but we can't do that if we're not grounded on a similar project for which had a different outcome, but had a, you know, set of similar and different processes. That's why I think, again, focusing on the means and methods and conditioning, and hopefully with comparative cases that address, you know, the proclivities of what data we have, can really help us understand what's common across all of these, and what's really different. And then that way, we can be much more circumspect of that. So I absolutely agree.Riccardo  14:51You touched I think you, earlier you touched on you said the word conditions, right, the condition within the range of the major programme and I don't know if it's equivalent, but I refer often to it as a complexity, you know, we're dealing with a complex system. So sometimes we don't even fully understand the relations between, with between the conditions, because it's a complex system, by definition, which is, to me to be fair was a key concept in understanding an industry that had been part of for over 20 years, but couldn't quite understand why it couldn't, wasn't working the way it was supposed to. And yeah, the condition, the complexity, and really diving into those in order to understand and I really like your example where, you know, you might have the same condition but different outcomes. Because of and I think that's inherent with complexity, or complex system is just you don't fully understand the interrelations.Daniel 16:57This is why I think, in our programme and just in major programmes in general, there's an increasing consensus to treat this like a system. Right now, I think one of my colleagues at Oxford, Harvey Mahler, has been focusing on different forms of complexity. And what he basically says is there's complexity within the project as well, literally, what are the tasks and work to be done, the harder systems kind of structure, what is the routine that has to be done to do this thing. But then he says, the project, though, is in a wider environment, right? So you have regulations, politicians turning over at all points, you have socio-political what you would call I think, socio-political complexity. And then by the way, it's not like, if I look at it at times zero, the same form of complex emerges at time one, because when you run the system and loop it, all of sudden things emerge and change. And so there's, he would, argue emergent complexity. Now, what's interesting about what he's saying, If we tie it to the earlier part of our conversation, we're talking about means and outcomes, we still empirically largely focus on those within the project paths, right? So when we typically measure performance outcomes, we measure even means we're thinking, I'm delivering this project, how do I measure it? And how do I benchmark that? I think we're, empirically my research has been doing too, and speaking to the points that Harvey Mahler, complex and others have said, I've been thinking about how do I understand all the stakeholders, not just within the project orbit to get it done but intersected? And that's what's driven a lot of my research on understanding, take bridge infrastructure, how does that affect not just the users or the people that have to deliver the project, like the construction companies, etc? But how does it impact the communities that are intersected, right? A lot of them are displaced. A lot of them, you know, for us to have this road go through, I benefited being in the car, but some community had to be displaced to change the right of way for that path. And that's why I think of infrastructure as one subset of major programmes. We often write in our papers that it's an arena for both intended and unintended connectivity. Me using the infrastructure, me using major programme, that's an intended use. Me delivering on the major programme is an intended use. The community that's not having this system come for them may not be welcome, right? And what that means is we need to start thinking about how do we measure outcomes, not just cost, scheduling, scope, quality of project, how that changes over time, very important, but also thinking about equity concerns, thinking about what did the project do? Does it help me employ; does it help in employment? Does it help in innovation? Things that often you measure after the project is transplanted but there are things you could do in the middle. How many? What percentage of small businesses are you bringing into the project? Is it just the big conglomerates or small businesses, I mean, this you could do even within the project. And so we're and by the way, this is this is not just because the research is intrinsically interesting, which I find, but increasingly what we're finding even in our program, sponsoring agencies are saying we've sent executives to come learn, and train. And this is not just in the Master of Science in Major Programmes, but also Major Project Leadership Academy. The sponsors are increasingly saying, we need to demonstrate the benefits of these programs, the social value, and we don't have a language to do that we really need your help in developing it. And so now, it's not us just because we're excited about the research. But this is becoming increasingly mandated, especially from sponsoring agency, the agencies sponsor the projects, especially government. And so that's opening a really exciting terrain, I think, for research, but a very empirically challenging one, because there's not a really clear set of standards. Right? So how far away from the project do you need to look at it? How many? What kind of outcomes? Is it employment, is it innovation, is it entrepreneurship? What forms of social demography should we be looking at? Let's just take disadvantage as an example. Is it by income? Is it by gender identification? Is it by ethnicity? Is it by a combination? Maybe it's, maybe that's not, maybe it's not about disadvantage. Maybe it's about a critical occupation. Where are the certain craftsmen of a certain kind of background or expertise? Is that what we should be measuring? There's not really a standard. And so until we develop that, it's going to be very hard for us to find a way to our point, what's common across these or what's not if we can't even agree on the outcome. And kind of go back to the beginning part of this question. Essentially, what I'm saying is, when we think of complexity, and if we take Harvey Mahler and other people's work seriously, Andrew Davies, others, we have to think about not just complexity inside the project itself as a system, but in the wider environment, especially the connection point being sociopolitical emergent complexity, some of that comes out of nowhere, and usually, it's outside of the project where you didn't have your lens placed. And so, you know, that kind of, kind of approach, it's early days, it's early days. I've been one of the people trying to advance and pioneers himself, even how to use your existing major programmes to sense where these disadvantage gaps are, we have a paper just came out, I think, in December actually, just starting to think, how do we even try to solve this problem? We know it's a problem, how do we try to come up with early stages to solve it?Riccardo  22:46What you just enunciated and from my learning, if we can see the major programmes, as you said, it's a system of systems. And ultimately, it's a system of systems goes through several phases, right? You got the planning, you got implementation, you got operation. And I think considering major programmes as systems or system of systems allows you to provide resilience to the major programme, right? Because ultimately, that's what, you know, these are very fragile things in the sense that, you know, you got all these external forces, that trying to influence, you know, the system, the political system changes every four years, right? And the major programme is supposed to be set up to survive the political system. So how do you go about creating that resiliency, and then you got, you know, you move from design, sort of a planning phase to design to construction, and, again, that I'm just taking one item, which is the political system, you know, it probably changes three times. And the budget program is supposed to be designed, at least that's what I've learned that it's supposed to be designed to survive that, because the cost is so high, that you can't have those influences and, you know, I might be controversial, but like, you know, it just two in my mind, it's, you know, there was lacking some of that resilience, because it didn't survive the political the various political cycles, and maybe that was not the only reason but certainly was one of the reasons you know, you have a changing government changing priorities and, and you if you haven't laid the groundwork, you know, the major problem might suffer.Daniel 24:37This provides a couple of interesting provocations one, which ties into our discussion of what we can learn empirically. I mean, it'd be really interesting to see so if you have system's systems, they intersect with each other, undoubtedly, what ends up happening is sometimes your cognitive focus is on one layer of the system, and you take for granted others which could come to your both your benefit in terms of focus, but also your detriment. And so there's kind of two questions that come from that. One is, is our cognitive awareness or salience of different parts of the system? Is there a way to do that, which kind of balances, I can't do everything, I can't pay attention to everything. And at the same time, I need to be mindful of interdependencies, and maybe a way to dynamically understand that maybe at a certain phase of the program, I focus on this layer. And another one, I focus on another one. That's one aspect. Another aspect that can be interesting is just treating the natural seeing if we can, instead of using the gates that you have to usually typically pass on a project (inaudible) formal. Is there something we learned about if we look at the systems or interlinkages? Is there a certain way in which the systems ebb and flow that there's some kind of clear phase changes just from the data? Oh, at this phase change, we shifted this way this was effective versus that way. Now, what that means, though, and I'm hoping from this podcast, what comes out of it is major programme managers willing to let researchers from the beginning, just be with them in the project and follow along. Right? And there's some opportunities, I think some are enterprising and doing this. Now, on the other hand, how do you then balance as a researcher delivering insights and findings that are both beneficial, but also say there's some detrimental issues in a way that your point acknowledges the political context? Because the problem is I think major programme managers want to know when things are going wrong and when things are improving. But if it becomes clear publicly something has gone wrong, then they're worried about the pressure they're going to get from constituents, policymakers saying, how did you, how come yet again, you're wasting money on x? But then what that does is it creates on the other side, a chilling effect that no one really wants to know when things are going, right. I mean, privately they do. Publicly, they don't. So even to do that kind of work, we're gonna have to think of a new platform, almost like I've been playing with this idea, kind of taking this model from Kiva, which is, you know, you want to bring people that needs support with people that match. I'm wondering if you could do the same thing with research, say, either policymakers or major programme managers have data. It's anonymized enough where it doesn't go back then. But enough where the research has enough detail and the researchers need data to do projects, they get to track them. And there's some way to anonymously reveal the results. Maybe there's some kind of mechanism or matching that would be for quantitative data. But for process models, you need usually qualitative data. So to answer the question (inaudible) is there some way to cognitively pay attention to different systems layers is there some natural phase changes would need access from the beginning of the project all the way to the end so you can actually match, chronicle these sequences. And also, there's some risks to it, you don't know as you're doing it, whether this project will succeed or not. Maybe you're doing it and it fails and you have a bunch of failures. And then you're learning different forms of failures, that's fine, too. But it requires also some mechanism by which practitioners feel comfortable and psychologically safe enough that they can allow researchers to come through who would still want to publish these general best practice insights, but in a way that separates them from kind of unintended consequences or pressures from that. The second point I'll make, which I think is really interesting, your use of the word resilience because I remember, I'm also you want to build kind of systems or major programmes to be resilient to these ebbs and flows. At the same time, if we take the whole kind of ecosystem or institutional perspective of in which the major programme is situated, you start having to ask yourself, what is the major programme really delivering? Is it entrenching existing interests or not? And why do I say this? I remember I was on a panel or as moderating a panel with Shalanda Baker, who is the, was advancing a lot of the energy justice initiatives at the DOE, really well-regarded developing the policies for the U.S. especially around energy. And I remember asking the president, how do you make, how do we make it more resilient? And she said something I think was so profound, I've been thinking about it daily, almost. She said, “I actually don't want these to be resilient. And I said why? She said because inequity, structural inequity is one of the most resilient things. And I thought that was so interesting because then you start asking yourself, yes, you want the programme itself to be resilient to deliver things. But if you start asking yourself, what is it we're asking these programmes to deliver? Is it really creating the kind of change we want or not? You then start asking, do you want the whole system of even selecting these projects to be resilient? I think that's quite interesting because if you think about it, structural inequities last over time. I mean, to give an example, very common example. We build infrastructure, understandably so to last as much as possible. So take a typical bridge. You know a bridge, the life cycle's what, 50 to 70 years, let's say? Imagine who was in the room in 19- let's say -50s, 1970s making those decisions, right? At best, you're using engineers who are looking at the best state of the practice, urban planners, the most well-intentioned, are looking at the best practice of the time usually thinking about the project itself. So obviously, communities are not in the room, even if it's well attended to because they don't think this is what matters at the time.Daniel 30:21At worst, you're intentionally putting people in the room that are going to do something with an agenda. Now, fast forward seventy years later, that bridge has housing next to it, has gas lines next to it, has electricity next to it, is completely locked in, and you as an engineer, you as a community worker, you as even as an anthropologist know certain people should have been in the room and we should change the practices, etc. It's really hard to revert because you would have to unravel all of those connections. I mean, to give a very simple, less controversial example. There was a bridge in Kentucky that they wanted to unravel the spaghetti junctions that led to it right. And the reason was that we now know from traffic planning that spaghetti junctions are not always the best way to deal with traffic, and they want to unravel it. To do that they would have had to remove all the houses, gasoline, such it would have added $2 billion to the project. You're dealing with a financial crisis; you're dealing with increased pressure from government to reduce costs. That's one of the first things to go. So they just worked within the existing footprint. And with that very rational decision, you've essentially kept an outdated process, outdated project in further perpetuity. Right? And so I think people when they argue these social challenges, I think, if they were so overt, in a program, those are the easier to deal with I think the fact that makes it so pernicious is it's absolutely rationalizable, you know, I'm focusing on one of the most famous studies actually of discrimination racism to get into it is by Thomas Schelling was a Nobel Prize winner in economics. And basically, argued was that most people argue the reason you have these things is that one group hates the other group, very reasonable conclusion. But he shows if I even have a preference, let's say he created like some cells and he said, I have a house and I just want half of the people around me to be like me, and think of yourself at a party right you go you want to build rapport, there's a real attraction for what we call homophily, finding similarity. And he shows if you run a similar simulation, just I want to be near people I like, you will get segregation. So it can, it doesn't have to be over perniciousness, it's you're doing the best things you can at the time. Right? And it perpetuates. Take another product, this is why it gets so fundamental visceral at this point, take a call for proposals, just to make this thing. So you have a call for proposals for contractors, let's say for a project, right, typical practice. And what are you going to typically do, you're going to go to people that have prior experience in doing this work. I mean, you need to trust that you don't want to be the one taking risk. Well, obviously that's going to already predispose the project to people with a lot of background. So anyone trying to get into the door, we've already just from the process, a very rational process, by the way, there's nothing wrong with this, you're already excluding certain groups, right? And then, you know, let's say another one, even innovation, let's say I'm a group that's doing A and I want to bring in B, well, a natural process, even as a reviewer as a project manager, well I know A, I can't say anything about B, so you refuse to review the proposal, anything else because you don't know anything about B. If everyone does that in a profession, then B will never see the light of day not because B has no merits, but no one feels equipped to do anything about it. And so then you can start seeing how innovations can get stifled. So to kind of make a long story short, I mean, we talked about the need for discussing resilience at the project level, different phase changes, maybe linkages across this and what to do, and then what that does, and also potentially, how to work practitioners working with researchers to make access possible in a way that kind of allows the findings to be unfiltered at the same time reconciles these programs in a system and then falling from that point. I think we need to be reflective of what is it we're trying to really deliver. I mean, it's not just the program, it's towards some outcome, and is that outcome, something that needs to be revised and changed? And so a second very cool question would be where do we want resilience in a major programme? I mean, obviously, you want it within the program, but do you want it in the selection process? Maybe not? Do you want it in the post validation where we don't do as well? Maybe not so maybe resilience is not great everywhere. And maybe it's really important in certain places. I think this is a really (inaudible) kind of push has been really I've been really thinking about this a lot, because it's a really visceral fundamental point. What is it we're actually doing and trying to achieve?Riccardo  35:12As a major programme practitioner, the major programme is at the center, right? That's where I put it. And that's a very centric view of, you know, building resilience, because the major programme for me or for practitioners, and even academic to a certain degree is the core. But you're right, societally, from a societal standpoint, it might not be, you know, the lack of resilience might actually be a positive thing because it afforded the conversation, the changes on something that, you know, is gonna last for 50, 70, 100 years and so you do want those conversations to be fluid and not to be stuck. No, I love it. I think you just gave me a new perspective that I probably gonna be thinking about every day, like you, now.Daniel 36:02It's also thinking that it's a conduit, right? It could be central but it's a conduit to some end. And then you have to ask yourself, is that the end we want to achieve? Right? So a lot of our grand challenges need to be achieved at scale. It's a conduit, and I guess we're thinking we focus so much on making the conduit good and resilient. The question is, is the end where we want to go? It's interesting.Riccardo  36:24It'd be interesting for some of the listeners to understand what the new trends in major programme are research? What does Oxford see as the new trends?Daniel 36:41I don't want to speak necessarily, for Oxford, but what I've seen is as an N of 1 faculty member there is I think, there is a real interest of and I think it's because of sponsors asking for it. I think also the research and we've discussed a lot of it is major programmes in the societal context. So major programmes in society, what is it we're doing? To ensure kind of social mobility? What is it we're doing to ensure outcomes for communities? I think it's a big area, not much research on. And I kind of think of it as, you know, fundamentally, you're doing major programs to uplift communities to better something. So in some sense, by definition, a lot of major programmes are to help the trailing edge. For those that are already at the at the leading edge, they often already have the research and other things, I mean, the means to do some. So often, a lot of big major programmes, infrastructure, social programs, are sometimes at the trailing edge. How do we understand that? How do we do that? I think the other one is now we're going to the leading edge is how are we going to deal with a lot of new technologies? I mean, one of the historical issues in a lot of our industries is that they've been in transient to change or innovation. And I guess the age-old question, it's kind of a timeless question is, is this new technology, whatever it is, AI, you know, and specific forms of AI like ChatGPT, or generative learning, generative models, additive manufacturing, modular infrastructure construction or modern methods of construction in general? Are these just the fact of the week? And they're not really changing how we do things? Or are they fundamentally changing things? And I think we have that kind of existential question all the time. I think another area is, personally, tools that address what I call the collapse time cycle of major programmes. There's an interesting tension in major programming the following: major programmes last, you know, take, five plus, six plus, 10 plus years. So you have to plan and you can't end they're big. So you can't just go off the hip, you have to have a plan. I mean, you can't, like I know we've been talking about process, but that can't have, that can't be rudderless because you're dealing with very big projects. So you have to have some kind of plan some anchor. At the same time, and this is where I think the grand challenges come not just as an end, but also as an input is the climate changing, right? So 5, 10 years from now, the climate is going to be so different. And by the way, the projects I'm building now, if we want to hit even half emissions by 2030, netzero 2050, basically, the projects I'm planning today, when they roll out, have to hit half emissions, at least, right? And they have to do it in a climate that's changing. I mean, that's if you think it's an insane proposition. But that's the task, right? So now I'm thinking, how can we develop tools? How can we use these technologies not just as how they're going to disrupt an industry but can we use them fundamentally, to help kind of build anticipatory heuristics to manage that? And this is where I think things like the trends that are happening on digital twins, augmented reality could be quite interesting. Because if I can help people see a digital twin and see what it could look like if flooding happens, or if I can show how the fluid dynamics in terms of heat of a server changes with temperature change, even if it's not perfect if I can get people in that mindset, my view is that can allow them to anticipate problems that wouldn't have happened before. So I think there's a really nice frontier of what are the tools and techniques, not just to coordinate like, you know, Arup, Acom, Jacobs, Matt McDonnell, Acadia, all of these groups have these like really nice digital twin systems to kind of help coordinate to great scaffolding, I like to call it but also thinking, how do I use that to kind of help people anticipate where things are happening, not that it's going to be perfect, but at least be aware so that when this happens, they're kind of mindful of it? And so I think that's another kind of really interesting trend. And to double click on the program society, one, I think, like we discussed, how are we going to have standards by which to assess for different infrastructure systems, how we're going to incorporate these kinds of community factors, outcomes, processes, how we're going to track them? Because right now, I mean, it's such a pressing issue, at least in the context I look at, I mean, look at leveling up in the UK, they're asking for quantifiable metrics to do it. The Department of Transportation in the U.S. has now made it as part of an executive order actually writ large across the U.S. government, the department (inaudible) are asking, can you come up with equity-based frameworks, etc., because they're asked to do it. And it's coming to a head because district attorneys, county attorneys are putting in Civil Rights Act claims against infrastructure, if they feel it's disadvantaging certain groups, there's literally cases right now going on. And because there's not a standard, what I find usually, I'm not saying it's always the case, but my opinion, when you don't have a standard for something, it usually settles out of court, because no one's sure where the courts gonna land. And so then you never get to, there's no way to build precedents to address the issue. And they always get settled out of court for kind of esoteric means for which we can't understand. And so we need to find ways to build that in. And ideally, I mean, my dream would be that this is directly incorporated in certifications for different groups, like associates or project management certifications, engineering, have, you know, they have chartered engineering in U.K. Professional Engineering licenses in the U.S. that this is actually part of their exams, like you have to have a kind of a social modular equity module where you think through this, but we don't have the research body yet. And then I think the last point, in terms of even just understanding trends, the way I think of me as a researcher, I try to ask myself, what's going to matter three to five years from now, the reason I say that is because when a practitioner comes now with a problem, by the time I can find the empirical base, the database to do it, I could come up with an answer, but I just worry, it's too late. Right? The thing is, the train has already passed, right? But if I could think of what's going to matter five years from now, and take that bet, as a researcher, then I can build the basis by which all of a sudden a lot of people come. And that's how my infrastructure and equity work started. I think equity is going to matter hugely. But it started five years ago, when I started seeing the murmurings of it in certain governments. And people thought it was crazy at the time. I mean, engineers were saying, Why is engineers care about this? And I understand why because it's like, they're focusing on the delivery of the brick-and-mortar project. This is not the not an indictment on the profession. It's their focus, right. And so when I finally built it, all of a sudden, then you had some high profile cases coming in, you have administrations focusing on equity. And all of a sudden, we're one of the few games in town because we spent time doing it. But it's a bet. I mean, there's other bets I've taken where people didn't care, right? So I think with these trends, just take them with, these are best of what's going to matter, five, three to five years from now, so that we're ready to come up with answers. So to kind of summarize major programmes in society, what are the standards we're going to use by which to do that? I think understanding various disruptive technologies, are they really changing things are not in terms of the industry, or even the major programme as a whole? And then we're flipping it? Can we use technologies to help us reassess fundamental, timeless questions about this time collapse timescale? Perhaps even upskilling for the new workforce we're going to need? Could we combine augmented reality with cognitive science understand what's activated in someone's brain when they're doing certain tasks? Could that help us build a whole new workforce, especially those transitioning from one form of energy to another? So these are the kinds of things that excite me, besides often, the age old questions of how do we understand successful projects? How do we understand to deliver things on budget, on time with benefits? I think those are always going to be there. But these are kind of new trends. I see.Riccardo  44:55  Yeah. I, certainly as a practitioner, not the things I think about it regularly so that's very stimulating. So we're coming to an end but before we conclude, we, you know, we can have you on the podcast and now talk about a little bit about the MMMPM programme, the Major Programme Leadership Academy, especially because, especially with a Major Project Leadership Academy, Major Programme Leadership Academy is in no, in Canada, we started to talk more and more about the need for having capable owners and having counterparts to the private sector, they're able to engage, engage in major programmes. And so, you know, anything you can share with the listeners about, you know, the MMPM, also the MMPLA and the benefits that brings to major programmes. Daniel 46:02I think, and I say this in the context of there's some really other fascinating programs coming along, that are really pushing this, I think, in general, there should be more of these in general, because there's such a demand for people that can do this stuff, that I think the pie is only going to get bigger of need. And so I don't, you know, I want to also preface that I don't think you know, our way is the only way, I tend to be very excited about it, but at the same time, there's others, I think most of the programmes, just to put it this in the context, I think of two things that are really important about the masters of major programme management philosophically. One is it's major programmes as a social science, really, from an organizational systems perspective, but other frameworks. Now, why do I say this is because there's quite a few other programmes, very important, very crucial in advancement, but are more from a civil engineering construction side, typically. So they either focus on the construction industry, and they get into the more technical details of how do you schedule in a certain way? How do you deal with contracting in this way, etc. And we cover some of that. But I think where we come into, is looking at it from a social science perspective, and maybe give you a new nuance about not just the hard side of things, but the softer side. And why do I say that is because it then influences the second philosophical point is that the kind of the kind of students, the kind of people we attract, are really what I call reflective practitioners. They're getting practical insights from this program, but it's through taking a step back from their experience, and thinking, oh, wow, this is a new insight, how could I have rethought this point. And that reflection brings a lot of practical value, new tools of oh my gosh, if I did this in this project, it's sometimes even they're doing it at the time. And so what that means is the kind of students we usually attract. To do that, well, you need people with a wide body of experience to leverage from so our students are actually the most experienced in Oxford. The average levels of experience is usually 15 years, that doesn't mean everybody has 15 years. But to give you a sense of experienced, average age is usually 40 plus, and we get a wide set of people, because when you think of major programmes as a social science, you're thinking about the organizations and systems underlying it. The major programme for which that could apply could be everything from infrastructure to social programmes, welfare programmes, even programmes designed in areas of extreme complexity and conflict, right? And so that's what I think the MSc in general, and you know, the kinds of things we discuss and look up and there's things on the website, but we focus on design, how do you design these fundamentally, they're temporary, but they have to fit with a sponsoring organization or set of organization that are permanent? And how do you balance that? How do you find the right people to fit with that? So on? The second one is around risk, like how do you think about risk? from a project perspective? How do you come up with ways to inform how you think of risk, and then even does the values that you place on a project that change how you kind of calculate things for risk? The next one systems, right? If you think of major programmes as entirely components, how do you think through that, etc. The fourth one's around stakeholder management, how do you manage stakeholders deliver things, which leads into the commercial leadership aspect, because usually, when you're kind of linking with stakeholders, once you've kind of reached some sets of agreements, the idea is you want to formalize, have a mechanism some way to do that. Then we have a research methods class, because you do a dissertation part of the reflection process is take something you're really passionate about for three to four months, and really think even more deeply of the literature and how it helps inform practical insights. And we have performance leadership, how do you lead these kinds of complex unwielding projects that steer them towards the outcomes you're interested in? And then we think of them in a globalized context. I think there's going to be some interesting changes coming up in the horizon that are exciting and happy to talk about it at a certain point but I think this is the general architecture to date. The major project leadership academy, similar orientation, but the kind of the kind of leaders we're dealing with is a bit different, right? This is, this is a programme that's been mandated by the infrastructure projects authority in the U.K. and essentially a few years back, there was concern of all the overage in major projects, and he said, can we develop some kind of training that can help us stop that. And so the idea there is, my understanding is virtual because I, Paul Chapman leads that programme, so I don't want to speak fully on this but my sense of the program is that the idea is that you have this major project portfolio from the government that has a certain any project of a certain level is part of that portfolio. And the leaders from that programme have to go through MPLA. And it's very focused on kind of leadership of yourself. What are the things you're strong at? Where do you need help that kind of notion of incomplete leader? How do you think about again, Matt, leading this in a temporary organization? How do you build the fits together? Commercial leadership, right? How do you contract correctly? How do you establish boundaries for which this programme was going to operate? And then technical leadership, what are the kinds of competencies, specialties you need to deliver. And there's different modules for that, at the end, there's an assessment of every leader, they present an oral presentation, and there's an assessment of whether they can meet the challenges of managing a project in that portfolio. So there's a much more there's these are leaders that are either managing these kinds of major projects now looking to the next one. And, and it's very much with the U.K. government's lens in mind, I think there's real ability, if of interest, to expand this to a variety of other country contexts. I think there could be other versions of MPLA, for all sorts of countries. And so I know, there's keen interest on that we've done that in the past. So if there are leaders in Canada, leaders in other places that want to do this, this is very possible, in fact I think we're very excited by this possibility because we know the U.K. is not the only one with these challenges. And at the same time, we know that these kinds of programmes, while it has a very clear core that's very effective. Also, by the way, they do 360s at the beginning and at the end of the project with both their superior subordinates, lateral peers to kind of and we try to see how did they change over time? Do they get a better sense of who they are? What did they learn? And so it's a very individual journey through a major project that you are managing, usually, in the U.K. Government at a certain level band, that's why it's this programme. And I would, I would love to see, where does this transport? I mean, could you do it in the U.S.? Could you do it in Canada? Could you do it in Germany? Could you do it in France, could you do it in New Zealand, Nigeria, Ghana, right? I mean, this is I think this is a real, it's a really effective model. It seems to have made a dent in these overruns. I mean, surely we still have overruns, this happens. But I think it's really reduced that. And so and in fact, a lot of now government officials that moved up in the organization. I've come out of that program. And I think, in terms of future, what I'm hoping with the program, personally, is I'm trying that the pitch I'm giving to corporations, especially is often when they're looking for sea level promotions, or, you know, chief level promotions, they're often looking for kind of a really amazing functional champion, one of the functions to bring them above. Now, the challenge is you hit this conundrum, right? The stuff that's made them really effective in their function is not what's going to make them strong as an executive, they all of a sudden go from this to like broadening out, and they and so you get this chasm that always happens, where you jump them up to that level and everything they did well, which is deliver really important specialist competencies. Now they have to manage things they don't are not experts in. So the pitch I've been trying to make sure if corporation understands is if you want to find the grooming ground for where you're going to find some really promising C-level appointments, look at those who are managing major programmes. They usally are getting to manage those programmes that are more mid-level earlier stage in career. They have a talent they've come in, that's why they're there. But all of a sudden, they're foisted with I gotta manage this billion-pound billion Canadian dollar billion dollar plus programme or even just really highly complex programme, and I gotta manage all sorts of different parts, all sorts of multiple disciplines. And if they're good at that, why can't they be a CTO, a COO, a CEO, that's what they're doing daily. And so I've been the pitch I've been trying to make for these programmes is you should be looking to bring your major programme leaders that you're thinking you want to groom for C-level, they should come to our programme because we will get we will take what they're already doing, give them a new kind of more generalized perspective with a bit of reflection on their own experience, and they'll come back they're ready to go. And I think this is something because you know, this takes some translation for people to understand what major programme is but that's the way to tell them is you're getting people who are already proficient in having a really deep expertise, and how to manage that expertise with a bunch of other functions, which is very unique. And so why not invest in those kinds of people because they could be your next C-level talents. And that's a pitch I use for this MMPM. I think MMPLA you could say the same thing. I mean, people are going back and forth in and out of private public sector. Yeah, so that's kind of how I see it. The slight, slight differences, but the same kind of orientation and motivation in mind.  Riccardo  55:37Yeah, if I can just had I mean, we, it was a few years back when it kind of dawned on me, this is before I did MMPM, but, you know, somebody, we were talking about $5 billion project, and somebody said, well, you know, it's a billion over five years, that's a billion a year, that's, that's a medium sized business, right? I mean, you're running a medium-sized business with that type of turnover. So yeah, I mean, the skills, the skills are there. If you're a project director or something like that, you probably have the traits or you're getting the experience that a CEO will get.Daniel 56:15There's an interesting problem in entrepreneurship. To your point, you're managing a small business, it's quite fleeting, if you think of it, it's almost like a small venture, right? I mean, not a small venture, but it's, let's say, a venture that's hit, you know, at least in terms of valuation, maybe a later stage Series C, private equity, maybe Series B, depending on whether it's a unicorn or not. And so essentially, that's what you're doing. And if you think of a startup, it's kind of temporary. I mean, most of them don't last beyond five years. And so, you know, there's a big challenge in entrepreneurship to your point, which is you found this amazing product. And now you want to grow a business out of it. And there's a massive chasm, so they even call they have a word for it's called valley of death. Yes. And I was thinking, the way we think about major programmes, we're thinking about how do you professionalize and scale something big quickly? To me, instead of thinking of startup canvas, lean startup, etcetera, those are valid ideas and insights, but they're really predicated on certain sectors. I mean, who else better to kind of solve that gap than major programme thinking? And I feel there's a really interesting gap to not just have major programmes in advancing its own right, but start speaking to other very prominent practical challenges. How do you scale a startup? That's about professionalizing your supply chain, professionalizing the structure of your organization, building coordination fast. I mean, who else would be prepared for that? In major programmes, I mean. That's a huge opportunity because it's a notoriously difficult problem. And what's nice about it, is even if you improve it, 2%, 3% that's all of a sudden, hundreds, maybe even thousands, tens of thousands of businesses that are now scaling, delivering jobs, the impact, even with just a small change in the needle is huge. And I think it's been too much thought about from an entrepreneurial perspective, which is, you know, product development driving this doing hypothesis tests, and they're not problematizing, that scaling approach. And I think that's where major programmes could have some really interesting impact and things we're actually discussing in the classroom as well, like, how do you then take that issue? Really nice translational opportunities as well, if you want.Riccardo  58:27I like it. It's really, really interesting concept. I might be thinking about that everyday too, also. Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat.DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the hosts and guests on this podcast do not necessarily represent or reflect the official policy, opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of Disenyo.co LLC and its employees.

In this episode of 'Brain In A Vat', Hans Gutbrod addresses the gap in philosophy in understanding the ethics around statues, street names, and museums.By drawing parallels to just war theory, Gutbrod proposes a framework to navigate the complexities of commemorating historical figures and events. The discussion also touches upon the potential for altering commemorative symbols to preserve memory while adapting their messages.This episode probes the moral and aesthetic considerations of how societies remember their past.00:00 Introduction and Thought Experiment01:31 The Gap in Philosophy and Ethics02:47 The Ethics of Representations of the Past03:19 The Role of Metaphysics in Commemoration03:48 The Influence of History and Philosophy on Commemoration04:42 The Impact of Statues and Memorials on Public Perception06:30 The Ethics of Political Commemoration09:38 The Criteria for Erecting and Keeping Statues10:36 The Role of Intent in Commemoration12:11 The Role of Empirical Research in Commemoration13:17 The Challenges of Commemorating the Past15:05 The Complexity of Commemoration19:04 The Scope and Vagueness of Commemoration21:54 The Role of Conversation in Commemoration26:38 The Role of Vagueness in Commemoration28:05 The Complexity of Erecting Statues28:32 Perspectives from the Caucasus28:58 Reframing the Debate: The Case of Georgia30:00 Street Names and Shadows of the Past30:57 The Role of Art in Commemoration31:43 The Sackler Controversy and the Power of Art32:40 The Value of Preservation and Enriching Debate33:06 The Risk of Over-Inclusivity33:29 The Osama Bin Laden Hypothetical34:54 Addressing the Vagueness Problem36:20 The Ethics of Political Commemoration37:56 The Challenge of Deciding on Statues41:30 The Power of Artistic Alteration45:53 The Holocaust Memorial in Berlin: A Case Study53:12 The Role of Aesthetics in Commemoration55:31 The Personal Engagement with Commemoration

This episode connects us with Michael J. Saks, a Regents Professor in the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and Department of Psychology at Arizona State University. He is also the author of Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony – and is an expert in the empirical studies of the legal system…. Professor Saks is on a mission to bring a better understanding and appreciation of the value of empirical research to lawyers. His primary research involves decision-making in the legal process, evidence law, the law's use of science, the behavior of the litigation system, and legal policy affecting medical patient safety. Join the discussion now to find out: What empirical research is, and how it ties into the legal system. Whether or not polygraphs are accurate. How handwriting analysis impacts legal evidence.  The challenges and limitations of forensic methods. To learn more about Professor Saks and his work, click here now! Take advantage of a 5% discount on Ekster accessories by using the code FINDINGGENIUS. Enhance your style and functionality with premium accessories. Visit bit.ly/3uiVX9R to explore latest collection. Episode also available on Apple Podcasts: http://apple.co/30PvU9C  

This week, Dr. Rufus Rankin, Head of Empirical Research at Nasdaq, joins Will Gibson to share his thoughts and experience with Risk as a previous fund manager and academic researcher.

Happy Halloween season to you all and thanks for tuning into Black Hoodie Alchemy! This week it's all things horror, even more than usual. We're diving into everything that constitutes horror -- particularly the movies, but to include literature, artwork, and music like heavy metal. Why do people enjoy horror while others don't? If horror is such a primal emotion based on survival, why do people seek it out in artistic experiences, and what might there be to gain from these experiences? Are these people sadistic, masochistic, or both? Are they thrill seekers or grief-tourists? While all of these less-than-desirable traits may be present in the rare horror enthusiast, the vast majority of horror fans are seeking to experience a catharsis that is something similar to a very small slice of the shamanic vision quest, where the initiate takes a whopping dose of psychedelics, heads into the wilderness at night with no plan, and seeks to find his way home come dawn. After all, Christ wandered in the desert for forty days and nights in confrontation with his shadow, and the Buddha himself sat under the bodhi as he was tempted my Mara the devil on his pursuit of enlightenment. That is the philosophical angle, which we will explore at more length! But there is also the scientific side. What is there to be said about the evolutionary responses? How does horror play a role in psychological therapies like "exposure" and "desensitization" therapy? How does early viewing of horror movies disturb childhood development and what kinds of people are more likely to enjoy horror? It's all this and much more this week! I hope you dig it. A Review of the Empirical Research on Psychological Responses to Horror Films - G. Neil Martin This week's featured music -- don't forget to support that black hoodie rap and all your favorite independent artists! The Most Violent - School of Thought Red Hook - Umang x Kickback Moonrays - Umang x BBZ Darney Round n Round - Epidemic --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/blackhoodiealchemy/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/blackhoodiealchemy/support

Videnskabeligt Udfordret skal lave et videnskabeligt studie - med dig! I de seneste par måneder har vi (og I) planlagt muligheder for at lave noget fjollet videnskab. Jeres valg landede på at undersøge omvendt psykologi, og derfor er dagens afsnit dedikeret til Flemmings research i teorien bag omvendt psykologi og i de studier der allerede findes indenfor feltet.Så glæd jer til at høre Flemming dykke ned i kaninhullet der er reaktans og trodsige jyder.Kilder:Macdonald, Geoff et al. “Do people use reverse psychology? An exploration of strategic self-anticonformity.” Social Influence 6 (2011): 1 - 14.Chan, W. T. Y. ., & Leung, C. H. . (2018). An Empirical Study on Reverse Psychology Applied in Advertising Messages . Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 8(9), 321–329. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.1007/2018.8.9/1007.9.321.329Steindl C, Jonas E, Sittenthaler S, Traut-Mattausch E, Greenberg J. Understanding Psychological Reactance: New Developments and Findings. Z Psychol. 2015;223(4):205-214. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000222. PMID: 27453805; PMCID: PMC4675534.Support the showHvis du vil være med til at optage live med os på Discord kan du støtte os på 10er og blive en af vores kernelyttere https://vudfordret.10er.appDu kan også tjekke vores webshop: bit.ly/vushop. Der er en hønsetrøje!Send os vanvittig videnskab eller stil et spørgsmål på facebook, Instagram eller vudfordret@gmail.comTak til Christian Eiming for disclaimer.Tak til Barometer-Bjarke for Gak-O-meteret.Husk at være dumme

Sena Ortakışlalı'nın sunumuyla bu podcastte korku türünün çeşitli yönlerini keşfediyoruz. Kutsal suyunuzun ve sarımsaklarınızın yanınızda olduğundan emin olun! --- Pilot bölümümüzde neden korku türünü tercih ettiğimizi, bu türü seven insanlarda diğer insanlara oranla daha sık rastlanan bazı özellikleri ve bir oyunu neyin korkutucu yaptığını konuşuyoruz. Görüş ve önerileriniz için Instagram'dan "Korkununanatomisi" sayfasından ulaşabilirsiniz. Kaynaklar: G. Neil Martin "(Why) Do You Like Scary Movies? A Review of the Empirical Research on Psychological Responses to Horror Films" https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02298/full#h5 The Psychology of Fear: Exploring the Science Behind Horror Entertainment https://online.csp.edu/resources/article/pyschology-of-fear/ What Makes a Horror Game Truly Scary? https://www.gamedeveloper.com/pc/opinion-what-makes-a-horror-game-truly-scary- --- radyu.yasar.edu.tr

Dr David Johnson is Reader in Comparative and International Education and Fellow of St Antony's College at the University of Oxford. He convenes Oxford's Centre for Comparative and International Education and recently held the position of Chen Yiden Global Visiting Fellow at Harvard. Dr. Matthew T. Lee is Director of Empirical Research at the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard University, where he also leads the Program's Community of Practice. He is also a Distinguished Visiting Scholar of Health, Flourishing, and Positive Psychology at Stony Brook University's Center for Medical Humanities, Compassionate Care, and Bioethics. Key Takeaways from this episode are: Multidimensional nature of flourishing, being inter-systemic, involving multiple systems: connections between flourishing and (i) the natural environment; (ii) justice; (iii) religion & spirituality; (iv) suffering; (v) contentedness; (vi) belonging; (vii) service to others; (viii) the narrative you tell of your life; (vi) empathy; (x) love; (xi) secureness in who we are; (xi) inner and outer harmony Flourishing as a process of growth and becoming Pathways to flourishing, globally The metaphor of discovering greater depth in oneself as a better metaphor for flourishing than growth. Connection with this and contentedness. Matt and David's work worldwide: David's work in various nations, including Bhutan; Matt's work with the Global Flourishing Study The limits of physical and emotional load for human beings, in relation to flourishing (examples of low well-being for medical students and professionals in the US, and teachers) Matt on the role of love in flourishing: ‘warm' and ‘cold' relationships

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: [Linkpost] Existential Risk Analysis in Empirical Research Papers, published by Dan Hendrycks on July 2, 2022 on The AI Alignment Forum. I've noted before that it can be difficult to separate progress in safety from progress in capabilities. However, doing so is important, as we want to ensure that we are making differential progress on safety, rather than just advancing safety as a consequence of advancing capabilities. In particular, I think that research should rigorously evaluate trade-offs between improving safety and advancing capabilities. This paper introduces the concept of “capabilities externalities,” and provides concrete steps for how to analyze the risk of different research papers. It also introduces “x-risk sheets,” which can be added to papers and help researchers discuss their impact on AI x-risk. Since discussion of AGI is becoming increasingly normalized in mainstream ML, I think careful discussions of x-risk are increasingly feasible within mainstream ML. The paper is largely aimed at mainstream ML researchers, and it is one step towards normalizing the discussion of existential risks. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Today's episode is sponsored by Codiga, a smart coding assistant and automated code review platform. Try Codiga for FREE!Links:Connect with Dr. Cat Hicks on TwitterCat Hicks'website:Her consultancy websiteReport: “It's Like Coding in the Dark”Subscribe on iTunes, Spotify, Google, Deezer, or via RSS.

My guest today is the natural scientist, academic and mediumship researcher Doctor Oliver Lazar who spoke with me from his home in Düsseldorf Germany. I first became aware of Oliver's work on mediumship through a YouTube video that has since gone viral in German - by which I mean it has had over 1 million views. That video now also exists with English subtitles - https://youtu.be/9e1SLF7Kg8Y - and I am very happy to be able to make this small contribution to spreading his work in English. I then got Oliver's book - currently only available in German - the title of which translates as: Beyond Matter: a scientist's moving Experiences with the spiritual world and his afterlife research. Oliver's personal experiences and research into mediumistic communication are indeed moving and scientific at the same time. This is a great combination and so I was delighted that he agreed to come and speak with me for this episode. The focus of our conversation is mediumship, the kind of solid evidence it can furnish, but also some of its pitfalls and limitations. But Oliver's book is much broader than that, as he really tackles the materialistic paradigm from a purely scientifically rational angle as well. So we also look at some complex issues undermining the materialistic argument that consciousness could have started from matter, or that life as we know it is a result of biological evolution only. If you want to find out more about Oliver's work or participate in the mediumship study he is coordinating you can go to his website https://oliver-lazar.com. I really enjoyed my conversation with Oliver Lazar and I hope you do too. Find out more about Oliver Lazar here: https://oliver-lazar.com https://youtu.be/9e1SLF7Kg8Y Find out more about Kim McCaul and his work here: www.multidimensionalevolution.com To support this podcast and get yourself a mind expanding read purchase a copy of Multidimensional Evolution: personal explorations of consciousness here https://www.amazon.com/Multidimensional-Evolution-Personal-Explorations-Consciousness-ebook/dp/B00FAIFZCK/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Kim+McCaul&qid=1588991352&s=books&sr=1-1

From the Learning Scientists podcast, cognitive psychologist Megan Sumeracki joins the Lab Out Loud podcast to talk about the science of learning. With a goal to make scientific research on learning more accessible, the Learning Scientists started as a Twitter account that has now grown to a popular podcast aimed at teachers, students and other educators. Megan joins co-hosts Brian Bartel and Dale Basler to describe how scientists research learning, remind us about proper experimental design (and why it's important), and share how the Learning Scientists are helping to broadcast these discoveries.   Show notes at: https://laboutloud.com/2022/02/episode-260-the-learning-scientists/

Today's episode is sponsored by Codiga, a smart coding assistant and automated code review platform. Try Codiga for FREE!Links:Book: Rethinking Software Engineering ProductivityHappiness and the productivity of software engineersTowards a theory of software developer job satisfaction and perceived productivityAn actionable framework for understanding and improving Developer ExperienceSubscribe on iTunes, Spotify, Google, Deezer, or via RSS.

Tune in to hear:- What might the personality of an ideal hire for a leadership position in asset management look like?- How can one measure things like emotional intelligence and curiosity that can seem kind of ethereal or hard to get your arms around?- Has Michael come across any counterintuitive, or surprising, discoveries in his research as he's tried to fill talent gaps in the financial services industry?- How does a company best walk the line between having adequate conflict, to fully vet and consider all perspectives, but not such excessive conflict that it spills over into ugliness?- What does the concept of “psychological safety” mean and how can one achieve this perspective throughout their organization?- How do we get beyond just paying lip service to wanting productive conflict in an organization and actually get to a point where we can have these conversations?- What are some common behavioral traps within decision making processes used by asset managers, and how does Michael council people to begin to overcome these?- Is there really something magical about the human touch that is additive to the investment decision making process or can we simply automate these things away?- How might we build out a more modular model that takes the best of quant, analysis and data and the best of human decision making and merges these aspects together?- What has come into focus for Michael since his ALS diagnosis?Books:https://www.amazon.com/Learn-Sustain-Long-Term-Economic-Growth/dp/1944960058https://www.amazon.com/Get-Work-Future-Michael-Falk/dp/1704375827ALS Charities: https://iamals.orghttps://lesturnerals.orgRecent Writing:https://investmentsandwealth.org/getattachment/2166018f-6fbd-4389-ad61-8352e53d7537/IWM20NovDec-EverythingYouNeedToKnowAboutInvesting.pdfhttps://www.cfainstitute.org/research/foundation/2021/capitalism-for-everyoneCompliance Code: 1740-BCI-5/27/2021

What does it mean to be well? In this conversation with Dr. Matthew Lee, Director of Empirical Research at Harvard's Human Flourishing Program, we run the gamut of subject matter—love, spirituality, inner peace, business—in search of the answer. A sociologist and former criminologist, Lee's research explores the pathways to human flourishing, benevolent service to others, and the integration of social science and the humanities. 

Practical Halakhah exists in constant dialogue with the world around it. Competent poskim know and respond to the social, political, and economic realities of their communities. In turn, halakhah shapes those realities in important ways. Consider for example the effect of capitalism on the laws of interest, and the effect of halakhah on the price of ungrafted citrons. Igrot Mosheh EH 1:49 was written when Rav Moshe Feinstein was living in Luban, Belarus. According to the biography printed at the start of Igrot Mosheh vol. 8, most of Rav Moshe's teshuvot written in that period were lost in transit. The ones that survive often establish themes that recur in his halakhic decisions. In general, while Rav Moshe's specific halakhic positions sometimes shifted over time, his underlying commitments were rock-solid. One of those commitments was to freeing agunot, and more, to an expansive notion of what constitutes a situation of iggun.   Belarus had joined the USSR in 1922, and Stalin had come to power in 1924. The combination of ideological opposition to religion and totalitarianism changed the reality of agunah cases in three ways. First, many women had a real option of leaving the religious community if the rabbis refused them permission to remarry. Second, even women who stayed within the community might see halakhah on this issue as an obstacle course rather than as a substantive moral guide. Third, husbands might very well be “disappeared” forever without notice and without record. Each of these factors potentially altered the classical calculus of credibility.  Mishnah Yebamot 15:1 states that if a couple goes abroad, and the woman returns alone claiming to be a widow, she is believed, even if her ground for the claim is hearsay. Ordinarily, two valid direct witnesses are necessary to undo a presumption of marriage. The Talmud offers a complex explanation for why the standards of evidence are relaxed here. There is a stick: if a court allows the remarriage and the husband turns up alive, she is forbidden to both men, and her children from the remarriage are now considered mamzerim.  There is a motive: the Rabbis were lenient in order to free women from being agunot. And there is a rationale, framed as a chazakah or legal presumption: women investigate comprehensively before they remarry. Rav Moshe's interlocutor questions whether the chazakah is still applicable. He notes that in the Talmud, a woman is believed if she claims in her presumptive husband's presence that he has divorced her. The ground for believing her is a chazakah attributed to Rav Hamnuna that “A woman is not brazen in the presence of her husband”. But RAMO EH 17:2 codifies the position that because of societal changes, this chazakah no longer generates the credibility necessary to allow remarriage. Perhaps the same is true for the chazakah that woman investigate comprehensively before remarrying? Rav Moshe responds with an emphatic no. The changes that led RAMO to sideline Rav Hamnuna's chazakah regarding divorce have no necessary implications for the chazakah regarding death. Rav Moshe ignores entirely, and I suggest deliberately, the question of whether changes specific to his own time and place have weakened the latter chazakah. Everything he says could have been written identically in the late 16th century. Two halakhic issues remain, however. The first is that the Mishnah says that the widow is believed only if “there is peace in the world and peace among them”. If there is war, then perhaps the husband is alive and prevented from returning or communicating. If there was marital strife, then perhaps the husband is maliciously staying out of contact precisely to make his wife an agunah. Rav Moshe notes that even by the woman's account, the husband had been completely out of touch for twenty years before his death. That seems to show clearly that he was in fact willing and maybe eager to leave her an agunah, so why is she believed? He offers three responses. The first is entirely technical. Talmud Yebamot 116a limits “lack of peace between them” to the extreme case in which the wife has previously made a false claim of divorce. RAMO EH 17:48 cites a position that adds the case of a husband who apostasized. Rav Moshe argues that RAMO does not intend to broaden the category to cases like those two cases, but only to add that one case. He contends that this is a better reading of RAMO's source in Shiltei Gibborim. (I am not sure why.) Rav Moshe's second response is that in this case, there are witnesses that the woman behaved as a widow the moment she reported the husband's death. He contends that this enhances her credibility. (I am not sure why.) The third response is that even the extension to apostasy is controversial. Rav Moshe does not address the question whether the gulag might play the same role as “lack of peace in the world”. Overall, Rav Moshe's responses seem weak if his goal is to convince us that the woman is obviously being truthful. However, they make a great deal of sense in light of Maharik #72. Maharik notes that Mishnah Yebamot 15:2 frames the decision to relax the standards of evidence as resulting from a specific case in which a beit din investigated a woman's claim to be widowed and it proved true. Tosafot Yebamot 116b comment that “because they saw that there would be many agunot if they did not believe her”. Maharik explains that the specific case taught the Rabbis that even women who told the truth would often be unable to find sufficient formal evidence. The Rabbis knew that some women would falsely claim to be widows; it would be ridiculous to conclude from one case that all women always told the truth in such situations. But they created the legal presumption anyway, because the consequences of the higher standard were unbearable. Rav Moshe does essentially the same thing. He presumably knows that the situation in the USSR made false claims more likely, but it also made more true claims impossible to prove. The balance of those changes meant that the rule should be left intact. However, a compromise is available. Rav Moshe has the option of saying that the rabbi should at least make a good faith effort to verify the woman's claim before permitting her to remarry. Pitchei Teshuvah 17:158 cited Radbaz as saying that in some cases where an investigation can be easily done, it must be done. Rav Moshe declines the compromise, on two grounds. First, he asserts that Radbaz required this only in cases where a woman was reputed to be licentious, and he sees no grounds for making this a general rule. (It seems likely that Rav Moshe did not see the original of Shu”t Radbaz 3:542, which strongly confirms his position. Radbaz seems to be dealing with a case in which a woman had made previous false claims of widowhood.) Second, Rav Moshe writes that since there is a man prepared to marry the widow in his case, and that man may not be willing to wait around while the rabbi investigates – the case is one of iggun gamur, just as if the woman were being prevented from marrying at all. (It's not clear whether Rav Mosheh would have the same objection if the woman did not have a proposal in hand.) I derive three principles from this teshuvah of Rav Moshe. 1) While chazakot are influenced by social changes, there is no straight line from a change in circumstances to a change in law. The legal presumptions that Chazal created via chazakot resulted from an interplay between their evaluation of reality and their sense of what halakhic outcomes were necessary or desirable. 2) Decisions in agunah cases are not properly classified as chumrot or kullot. Preventing a woman from remarrying is a wrong comparable to the stringency of allowing a woman to commit adultery. I don't mean that 50/50 cases should be decided by a coinflip, or even necessarily that one can permit remarriage when the odds are less than 999,999,999 to 1. What I mean is that Chazal set up a very precise balance, and that any deviation from that balance, either way, is equally problematic. 3) For agunot, justice delayed is justice denied. Rabbi Aryeh Klapper is Dean of the Center for Modern Torah Leadership, Rosh Beit Midrash of its Summer Beit Midrash Program and a member of the Boston Beit Din. Rabbi Klapper is a widely published author in prestigious Hebrew and English journals. He is frequently consulted on issues of Jewish law from representatives of all streams of Judaism and responds from an explicit and uncompromised Orthodox stance. The Yeshiva of Newark @IDT is proud to partner with Rabbi Klapper to help spread his scholarly thoughtful ideas and Halachic insight to as wide an audience as possible . Please visit http://www.torahleadership.org/ for many more articles and audio classes from Rav Klapper and to find out about his Summer programs as well as Rabbi Klapper's own podcast site https://anchor.fm/aryeh-klapper. Please leave us a review or email us at ravkiv@gmail.com This podcast is powered by Jewish Podcasts. Start your own podcast today and share your content with the world. Click here to get started. This podcast is powered by JewishPodcasts.org. Start your own podcast today and share your content with the world. Click jewishpodcasts.fm/signup to get started.

In this episode of Take a Seat, we sat down with Dr. Matt Lee, an expert on the science of flourishing at the Harvard Flourishing Project. In our conversation, we dug into the various components of flourishing (happiness and life satisfaction, physical and mental health, meaning and purpose, character and virtue, and close social relationships), as well as how we might re-imagine our systems of education to better support human flourishing and a regenerative way of life for individuals and our planet. As the Director of Empirical Research at Harvard's Human Flourishing Project, Dr. Matt Lee is “integrating the deep wisdom of the humanities with rigorous social science research” to define and investigate the measurable aspects of flourishing. The interdisciplinary program is aimed at pulling together knowledge from a variety of disciplines to better understand and promote human well-being. Website Email Human Flourishing Measure 2:31 Measuring Well-Being 2:50 Career background 4:51 The Joyous Recovery - Lundy Bancroft 7:08 Domains of flourishing 13:04 Transcend Scott Barry Kaufman 13:30 Why Good Things Happen to Good People Stephen Post 15:02 The Heart of Religion - Matthew Lee, Margaret Poloma & Stephen Post 15:15 Should Pediatricians Prescribe Kindness 16:55 Do schools kill creativity? - Sir Ken Robinsons 25:19 Bruce Perry's Neurosequential Model 25:47 We Dare Say Love - Na'ilah Suad Nasir, Jarvis Givens & Christopher Chatmon 28:29 Mathematics for Human Flourishing - Francis Su 31:35 Power of a good mentor or teacher 32:44 I and Thou - Martin Buber 35:26 The Science of Abundance - Jim Ritchie-Dunham 39:16 Dr. Paul Wong 42:20 Joy & suffering 43:03 Open Space, Transformative Education, and the Pursuit of Flourishing - Matthew T. Lee, Molly Hartsough, Sam Borick & Brooks Gathagan 44:23 “Students experienced a moment of being seen fully, both in their strengths but also in their flaws, in a classroom context”. 45:06 Is it possible to be seen fully? 46:30 Regenerative soil conditions

Season two of our podcast highlights the work of a new generation of NLR scholars.  This third episode presents an interview with Professor…

Here are my tools and tips on conducting research. Bear in mind, these are things that have worked for me and my research. It either may not work for you or you may need to use a different approach. Do what makes sense for you, and follow your motivation. Research skills evolve over time. So even though these tools may work for you now, you'll want to update your toolkit periodically. Happy researching! Full transcript available at dranthony.design --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/dranthony/support

Season 2 of our podcast highlights the work of a new generation of NLR scholars.  This second episode presents an interview with Professor Bernadette Atuahene, who has…

Why do we love fear? Plus our favorite horror films, Halloween candy and more.The Biology of Fear: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3595162/(Why) Do You Like Scary Movies? A Review of the Empirical Research on Psychological Responses to Horror Films: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6813198/

Season 2 of our podcast highlights the work of a new generation of NLR scholars, kicking off with April Faith-Slaker’s interview of Thomas…

It’s undeniable: The year 2020 will soon be written into the history book and HR needs data literacy more than ever.  And who better to talk about HR Data Literacy than Victor Assad, CEO of Victor Assad Strategic HR Consulting, Managing Partner of InnovationOne, and Sales Advisor to MeBeBot. Victor is the author of the highly acclaimed book, Hack Recruiting: The Best of Empirical Research, Method and Process, and Digitization.

In this podcast, CII Senior Research Analyst Lucy Nussbaum discusses CII's new bibliography and the importance of empirical research on ESG factors and firm value with Julie Gorte, the Senior Vice President of Sustainable Investing at Impax Asset Management.

Thank you for listening to Mormon Sex Info. This episode is an archived episode and is only now becoming publicly available. Mormon Sex Info relies on contributions. To contribute, please visit: mormonsex.info Natasha Helfer Parker continues her interview with Dr. Daniel Parkinson, a psychiatrist who was raised Mormon and left the church partly due to being gay, and Thomas Montgomery, Mormon father of a gay son and husband to Wendy Montgomery who helped found the Mama Dragons. Both men recently collaborated on some articles they decided to publish on the same day, Utah’s Escalating Suicide Crisis and LDS LGBTQ Despair on Rational Faiths and Rejection and the Family on No More Strangers. They discuss the alarming increase in suicide rates in Utah — a trend that has been apparent since the Church’s involvement in Prop 8, increased focus on anti-gay rhetoric in talks over the pulpit and the “November 5th policy” which specifically calls out homosexual marriage as a sin worthy of excommunication going as far as disallowing children who reside in such marriages to participate in Mormon ordinances. Many from within church activity dismiss this type of “anecdotal evidence” stating that one can not blame the Church or any one reason for something as complicated as suicide. Both interviewer and interviewees challenge this type of thinking and call on leaders and members alike to take note and be alarmed at the harm that is being done to LGBT+ members across the age spectrum. With the April 2017 Ensign having yet another anti-LBGT article being published just this coming month… these types of podcasts sharing valuable information can be life-saving to many within our midst. Please listen. Resources Mentioned During this Podcast: Family Acceptance Project Families are Forever The LGBTQ Mormon Crisis: Responding to the Empirical Research on Suicide Youth Suicide Rates and Mormon Religious Context: An Additional Empirical Analysis Dialogue Mama Dragons Affirmation ALL Arizona Utah’s Youth Suicide Problem interview with Doug Fabrizio Mormon Mental Health Association Mackintosh Family Video ACE Study I’ll Walk With You: Latter-day Saints Encouraging Love for our LGBT Brothers and Sisters This organization has a Facebook group for active LDS parents of LGBTQ children – you can request to join by contacting this website.

Thank you for listening to Mormon Sex Info. This episode is an archived episode and is only now becoming publicly available. Mormon Sex Info relies on contributions. To contribute, please visit: mormonsex.info Natasha Helfer Parker interviews Dr. Daniel Parkinson, a psychiatrist who was raised Mormon and left the church partly due to being gay, and Thomas Montgomery, Mormon father of a gay son and husband to Wendy Montgomery who helped found the Mama Dragons. Both men recently collaborated on some articles they decided to publish on the same day, Utah’s Escalating Suicide Crisis and LDS LGBTQ Despair on Rational Faiths and Rejection and the Family on No More Strangers. They discuss the alarming increase in suicide rates in Utah — a trend that has been apparent since the Church’s involvement in Prop 8, increased focus on anti-gay rhetoric in talks over the pulpit and the “November 5th policy” which specifically calls out homosexual marriage as a sin worthy of excommunication going as far as disallowing children who reside in such marriages to participate in Mormon ordinances. Many from within church activity dismiss this type of “anecdotal evidence” stating that one can not blame the Church or any one reason for something as complicated as suicide. Both interviewer and interviewees challenge this type of thinking and call on leaders and members alike to take note and be alarmed at the harm that is being done to LGBT+ members across the age spectrum. With the April 2017 Ensign having yet another anti-LBGT article being published just this coming month… these types of podcasts sharing valuable information can be life-saving to many within our midst. Please listen. Resources Mentioned During the Podcast: Family Acceptance Project Families are Forever The LGBTQ Mormon Crisis: Responding to the Empirical Research on Suicide Youth Suicide Rates and Mormon Religious Context: An Additional Empirical Analysis Dialogue Mama Dragons Affirmation ALL Arizona Utah’s Youth Suicide Problem interview with Doug Fabrizio Mormon Mental Health Association Mackintosh Family Video ACE Study I’ll Walk With You: Latter-day Saints Encouraging Love for our LGBT Brothers and Sisters This organization has a Facebook group for active LDS parents of LGBTQ children – you can request to join by contacting this website.    

THE WAT-ZEE PARTY HORROR SHOW 009: Red White & Blue (2010)/ Today's Teenage Horror Fans/ January 2020 Releases SHOW NOTES Misters Wat & Zee cordially invite you to the first Party of the new year! It's episode 009, folks, and the guys are kicking off their 3-Act podcast with a comprehensive look at the January 2020 horror movie releases in their infamous PARTY FAVORS segment. Next… in the HORROR DEEP DIVE portion of the show… our hosts welcome their very first guests to the Party: Their own teenage kids! Listen in as 16 year old Lil' Wat and 13 year old Frankie Zee talk to their elders about their views on the horror genre in this double dose of Wat & Zee! Lastly… it's SHOWTIME! In this segment, Dave & Dustin deliver a spoiler-free review of Simon Rumley's dark and disturbing 2010 film, Red White & Blue. Be sure to stay for the AFTER PARTY segment of the show, though, where spoilers abound and all bets are off! Join the Party & celebrate the genre with us here on episode 009 of The Wat-Zee Party Horror Show! TIMESTAMPS INTRO – Watson's Adventures In Podcasting = 00:02:29 – Cronenberg Talk = 00:03:15 – New Year's Resolutions = 00:06:37 – Episode Itinerary = 00:09:45 – Listener Feedback = 00:11:00 ACT 1: PARTY FAVORS  00:38:46 Mini Review Recap In Fabric (2019) January 2020 Releases The Grudge Trespassers Snatchers The Marshes The Sonata Underwater Extracurricular Feedback The Turning Color Out of Space Gretel and Hansel ACT 2: HORROR DEEP DIVE Today's Teenage Horror Fans w/ Lil' Wat & Frankie Zee = 01:15:44 ACT 3: SHOWTIME Red White & Blue (2010) = 02:31:11 OUTRO/MOVIE COIN TOSS = 02:53:12 THE AFTER PARTY = 03:02:07 WORKS CITED (Why) Do You Like Scary Movies? A Review of the Empirical Research on Psychological Responses to Horror Films https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6813198/ The Suicide Mouse Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQFZRmh7Rd4 CONTACT US! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624584081035786/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/WatZeeParty Instagram:

Rethink Priorities is a research organization dedicated to conducting research on neglected causes. Over the past year, they’ve developed a track record of high-quality research in the areas of farmed animal welfare, wild animal welfare, and risks from nuclear weapons. Co-founder Marcus Davis discusses the organization’s approach to producing valuable research, with specific reference to … Continue reading EAG London 2019: Rethink Priorities—Empirical research on neglected causes (Marcus Davis)

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Vasanti Jadva (Cambridge/UK) speaking on 'The psychological wellbeing of surrogates and their families'. Dr Vasanti Jadva’s BSc in Psychology was from City University, where she later worked as a Research Assistant at the Family and Child Psychology Research Centre on a project looking at families created using reproductive technologies. During this time she also conducted her PhD which examined sex differences in 12-24 month-old infants' preferences for colours, toys and shapes. She joined the Centre for Family Research in March 2006. She is currently a Senior Research Associate and an Affiliated Lecturer at the Department of Psychology and a member of the National Gamete Donation Trust’s advisory council. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Lopamudra Goswami (Griffiths University/Australia) 'Understanding the perspectives of Indian surrogate mothers on surrogacy'. Lopamudra Goswami is an Indian research scholar currently pursuing her doctoral studies at Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Australia. Her research area over the last 4 years has been with Indian surrogate mothers in Gujarat. Her doctoral work is also an extension of the same and she is now working at building a community based mental health model for the surrogate mothers. Lopamudra has had extensive teaching experience at several masters programs in Bangalore, India prior to moving to Australia. She has field experience of being with the mothers, interacting with them and knowing them beyond the realms of being surrogates. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Vasanti Jadva (Cambridge/UK) speaking on 'The psychological wellbeing of surrogates and their families'. Dr Vasanti Jadva’s BSc in Psychology was from City University, where she later worked as a Research Assistant at the Family and Child Psychology Research Centre on a project looking at families created using reproductive technologies. During this time she also conducted her PhD which examined sex differences in 12-24 month-old infants' preferences for colours, toys and shapes. She joined the Centre for Family Research in March 2006. She is currently a Senior Research Associate and an Affiliated Lecturer at the Department of Psychology and a member of the National Gamete Donation Trust’s advisory council. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Debra Wilson (Canterbury/New Zealand) speaking on 'The public perspective: empirical research into opinions on surrogacy in New Zealand'. Debra Wilson is an Associate Professor in Law at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. She specialises in medical law, with a particular focus on issues of regulation where there is an overlap with commercial or contract law. Debra has been a Erskine Visiting Fellow at Oxford University (2012), a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at Georgetown University (2014), a Visiting Researcher at the Brocher Foundation in Geneva (2014), and an Erskine Visiting Fellow at the University of Cambridge (2016). She is currently the Principal Investigator of a project entitled 'Rethinking Surrogacy Laws', funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Lopamudra Goswami (Griffiths University/Australia) 'Understanding the perspectives of Indian surrogate mothers on surrogacy'. Lopamudra Goswami is an Indian research scholar currently pursuing her doctoral studies at Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Australia. Her research area over the last 4 years has been with Indian surrogate mothers in Gujarat. Her doctoral work is also an extension of the same and she is now working at building a community based mental health model for the surrogate mothers. Lopamudra has had extensive teaching experience at several masters programs in Bangalore, India prior to moving to Australia. She has field experience of being with the mothers, interacting with them and knowing them beyond the realms of being surrogates. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Debra Wilson (Canterbury/New Zealand) speaking on 'The public perspective: empirical research into opinions on surrogacy in New Zealand'. Debra Wilson is an Associate Professor in Law at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. She specialises in medical law, with a particular focus on issues of regulation where there is an overlap with commercial or contract law. Debra has been a Erskine Visiting Fellow at Oxford University (2012), a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at Georgetown University (2014), a Visiting Researcher at the Brocher Foundation in Geneva (2014), and an Erskine Visiting Fellow at the University of Cambridge (2016). She is currently the Principal Investigator of a project entitled 'Rethinking Surrogacy Laws', funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Lopamudra Goswami (Griffiths University/Australia) 'Understanding the perspectives of Indian surrogate mothers on surrogacy'. Lopamudra Goswami is an Indian research scholar currently pursuing her doctoral studies at Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Australia. Her research area over the last 4 years has been with Indian surrogate mothers in Gujarat. Her doctoral work is also an extension of the same and she is now working at building a community based mental health model for the surrogate mothers. Lopamudra has had extensive teaching experience at several masters programs in Bangalore, India prior to moving to Australia. She has field experience of being with the mothers, interacting with them and knowing them beyond the realms of being surrogates. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Vasanti Jadva (Cambridge/UK) speaking on 'The psychological wellbeing of surrogates and their families'. Dr Vasanti Jadva’s BSc in Psychology was from City University, where she later worked as a Research Assistant at the Family and Child Psychology Research Centre on a project looking at families created using reproductive technologies. During this time she also conducted her PhD which examined sex differences in 12-24 month-old infants' preferences for colours, toys and shapes. She joined the Centre for Family Research in March 2006. She is currently a Senior Research Associate and an Affiliated Lecturer at the Department of Psychology and a member of the National Gamete Donation Trust’s advisory council. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Debra Wilson (Canterbury/New Zealand) speaking on 'The public perspective: empirical research into opinions on surrogacy in New Zealand'. Debra Wilson is an Associate Professor in Law at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. She specialises in medical law, with a particular focus on issues of regulation where there is an overlap with commercial or contract law. Debra has been a Erskine Visiting Fellow at Oxford University (2012), a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at Georgetown University (2014), a Visiting Researcher at the Brocher Foundation in Geneva (2014), and an Erskine Visiting Fellow at the University of Cambridge (2016). She is currently the Principal Investigator of a project entitled 'Rethinking Surrogacy Laws', funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Debra Wilson (Canterbury/New Zealand) speaking on 'The public perspective: empirical research into opinions on surrogacy in New Zealand'. Debra Wilson is an Associate Professor in Law at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. She specialises in medical law, with a particular focus on issues of regulation where there is an overlap with commercial or contract law. Debra has been a Erskine Visiting Fellow at Oxford University (2012), a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at Georgetown University (2014), a Visiting Researcher at the Brocher Foundation in Geneva (2014), and an Erskine Visiting Fellow at the University of Cambridge (2016). She is currently the Principal Investigator of a project entitled 'Rethinking Surrogacy Laws', funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Lopamudra Goswami (Griffiths University/Australia) 'Understanding the perspectives of Indian surrogate mothers on surrogacy'. Lopamudra Goswami is an Indian research scholar currently pursuing her doctoral studies at Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Australia. Her research area over the last 4 years has been with Indian surrogate mothers in Gujarat. Her doctoral work is also an extension of the same and she is now working at building a community based mental health model for the surrogate mothers. Lopamudra has had extensive teaching experience at several masters programs in Bangalore, India prior to moving to Australia. She has field experience of being with the mothers, interacting with them and knowing them beyond the realms of being surrogates.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Vasanti Jadva (Cambridge/UK) speaking on 'The psychological wellbeing of surrogates and their families'. Dr Vasanti Jadva’s BSc in Psychology was from City University, where she later worked as a Research Assistant at the Family and Child Psychology Research Centre on a project looking at families created using reproductive technologies. During this time she also conducted her PhD which examined sex differences in 12-24 month-old infants' preferences for colours, toys and shapes. She joined the Centre for Family Research in March 2006. She is currently a Senior Research Associate and an Affiliated Lecturer at the Department of Psychology and a member of the National Gamete Donation Trust’s advisory council.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Lopamudra Goswami (Griffiths University/Australia) 'Understanding the perspectives of Indian surrogate mothers on surrogacy'. Lopamudra Goswami is an Indian research scholar currently pursuing her doctoral studies at Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Australia. Her research area over the last 4 years has been with Indian surrogate mothers in Gujarat. Her doctoral work is also an extension of the same and she is now working at building a community based mental health model for the surrogate mothers. Lopamudra has had extensive teaching experience at several masters programs in Bangalore, India prior to moving to Australia. She has field experience of being with the mothers, interacting with them and knowing them beyond the realms of being surrogates.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Vasanti Jadva (Cambridge/UK) speaking on 'The psychological wellbeing of surrogates and their families'. Dr Vasanti Jadva’s BSc in Psychology was from City University, where she later worked as a Research Assistant at the Family and Child Psychology Research Centre on a project looking at families created using reproductive technologies. During this time she also conducted her PhD which examined sex differences in 12-24 month-old infants' preferences for colours, toys and shapes. She joined the Centre for Family Research in March 2006. She is currently a Senior Research Associate and an Affiliated Lecturer at the Department of Psychology and a member of the National Gamete Donation Trust’s advisory council.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Lopamudra Goswami (Griffiths University/Australia) 'Understanding the perspectives of Indian surrogate mothers on surrogacy'. Lopamudra Goswami is an Indian research scholar currently pursuing her doctoral studies at Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Australia. Her research area over the last 4 years has been with Indian surrogate mothers in Gujarat. Her doctoral work is also an extension of the same and she is now working at building a community based mental health model for the surrogate mothers. Lopamudra has had extensive teaching experience at several masters programs in Bangalore, India prior to moving to Australia. She has field experience of being with the mothers, interacting with them and knowing them beyond the realms of being surrogates.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Debra Wilson (Canterbury/New Zealand) speaking on 'The public perspective: empirical research into opinions on surrogacy in New Zealand'. Debra Wilson is an Associate Professor in Law at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. She specialises in medical law, with a particular focus on issues of regulation where there is an overlap with commercial or contract law. Debra has been a Erskine Visiting Fellow at Oxford University (2012), a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at Georgetown University (2014), a Visiting Researcher at the Brocher Foundation in Geneva (2014), and an Erskine Visiting Fellow at the University of Cambridge (2016). She is currently the Principal Investigator of a project entitled 'Rethinking Surrogacy Laws', funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Debra Wilson (Canterbury/New Zealand) speaking on 'The public perspective: empirical research into opinions on surrogacy in New Zealand'. Debra Wilson is an Associate Professor in Law at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. She specialises in medical law, with a particular focus on issues of regulation where there is an overlap with commercial or contract law. Debra has been a Erskine Visiting Fellow at Oxford University (2012), a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at Georgetown University (2014), a Visiting Researcher at the Brocher Foundation in Geneva (2014), and an Erskine Visiting Fellow at the University of Cambridge (2016). She is currently the Principal Investigator of a project entitled 'Rethinking Surrogacy Laws', funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Debra Wilson (Canterbury/New Zealand) speaking on 'The public perspective: empirical research into opinions on surrogacy in New Zealand'. Debra Wilson is an Associate Professor in Law at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. She specialises in medical law, with a particular focus on issues of regulation where there is an overlap with commercial or contract law. Debra has been a Erskine Visiting Fellow at Oxford University (2012), a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at Georgetown University (2014), a Visiting Researcher at the Brocher Foundation in Geneva (2014), and an Erskine Visiting Fellow at the University of Cambridge (2016). She is currently the Principal Investigator of a project entitled 'Rethinking Surrogacy Laws', funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Lopamudra Goswami (Griffiths University/Australia) 'Understanding the perspectives of Indian surrogate mothers on surrogacy'. Lopamudra Goswami is an Indian research scholar currently pursuing her doctoral studies at Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Australia. Her research area over the last 4 years has been with Indian surrogate mothers in Gujarat. Her doctoral work is also an extension of the same and she is now working at building a community based mental health model for the surrogate mothers. Lopamudra has had extensive teaching experience at several masters programs in Bangalore, India prior to moving to Australia. She has field experience of being with the mothers, interacting with them and knowing them beyond the realms of being surrogates.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Vasanti Jadva (Cambridge/UK) speaking on 'The psychological wellbeing of surrogates and their families'. Dr Vasanti Jadva’s BSc in Psychology was from City University, where she later worked as a Research Assistant at the Family and Child Psychology Research Centre on a project looking at families created using reproductive technologies. During this time she also conducted her PhD which examined sex differences in 12-24 month-old infants' preferences for colours, toys and shapes. She joined the Centre for Family Research in March 2006. She is currently a Senior Research Associate and an Affiliated Lecturer at the Department of Psychology and a member of the National Gamete Donation Trust’s advisory council.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Debra Wilson (Canterbury/New Zealand) speaking on 'The public perspective: empirical research into opinions on surrogacy in New Zealand'. Debra Wilson is an Associate Professor in Law at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. She specialises in medical law, with a particular focus on issues of regulation where there is an overlap with commercial or contract law. Debra has been a Erskine Visiting Fellow at Oxford University (2012), a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at Georgetown University (2014), a Visiting Researcher at the Brocher Foundation in Geneva (2014), and an Erskine Visiting Fellow at the University of Cambridge (2016). She is currently the Principal Investigator of a project entitled 'Rethinking Surrogacy Laws', funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Lopamudra Goswami (Griffiths University/Australia) 'Understanding the perspectives of Indian surrogate mothers on surrogacy'. Lopamudra Goswami is an Indian research scholar currently pursuing her doctoral studies at Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Australia. Her research area over the last 4 years has been with Indian surrogate mothers in Gujarat. Her doctoral work is also an extension of the same and she is now working at building a community based mental health model for the surrogate mothers. Lopamudra has had extensive teaching experience at several masters programs in Bangalore, India prior to moving to Australia. She has field experience of being with the mothers, interacting with them and knowing them beyond the realms of being surrogates.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Vasanti Jadva (Cambridge/UK) speaking on 'The psychological wellbeing of surrogates and their families'. Dr Vasanti Jadva’s BSc in Psychology was from City University, where she later worked as a Research Assistant at the Family and Child Psychology Research Centre on a project looking at families created using reproductive technologies. During this time she also conducted her PhD which examined sex differences in 12-24 month-old infants' preferences for colours, toys and shapes. She joined the Centre for Family Research in March 2006. She is currently a Senior Research Associate and an Affiliated Lecturer at the Department of Psychology and a member of the National Gamete Donation Trust’s advisory council.

This conference, organised by Cambridge Family Law together with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law, explored a range of issues and challenges surrounding the law and practice of national and international surrogacy from a practical perspective. Practitioners, lawmakers, academics and other participants will discuss the legal consequences of the rise in surrogacy arrangements and, in particular, reproductive tourism. For more information about the conference see: https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/international-surrogacy-forum-2019 This recording is from Part V - The Reality - Empirical Research Findings, with Vasanti Jadva (Cambridge/UK) speaking on 'The psychological wellbeing of surrogates and their families'. Dr Vasanti Jadva’s BSc in Psychology was from City University, where she later worked as a Research Assistant at the Family and Child Psychology Research Centre on a project looking at families created using reproductive technologies. During this time she also conducted her PhD which examined sex differences in 12-24 month-old infants' preferences for colours, toys and shapes. She joined the Centre for Family Research in March 2006. She is currently a Senior Research Associate and an Affiliated Lecturer at the Department of Psychology and a member of the National Gamete Donation Trust’s advisory council.

On Wednesday, April 24, the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela. By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was reversed and the case remanded. Prof. Henry Allen Blair will join us to discuss this decision and what it means for class arbitration issues moving forward. Featuring: Prof. Henry Allen Blair, Robins Kaplan Distinguished Professor and John H. Faricy Professor of Empirical Research; Senior Fellow, Dispute Resolution Institute, Mitchell Hamline School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On Wednesday, April 24, the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela. By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was reversed and the case remanded. Prof. Henry Allen Blair will join us to discuss this decision and what it means for class arbitration issues moving forward. Featuring: Prof. Henry Allen Blair, Robins Kaplan Distinguished Professor and John H. Faricy Professor of Empirical Research; Senior Fellow, Dispute Resolution Institute, Mitchell Hamline School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Markus Pantsar (Helsinki) gives a talk at the MCMP Colloquium titled "Empirical Research and The Philosophy of Mathematics". Abstract:In the philosophy of mathematics, one of the most fundamental questions concerns how mathematical methods help us get knowledge of the world. In this, mathematics with its apparent a priori character seems to be radically different from the empirical methods we otherwise rely on in science. This relation between the mathematical and the empirical has received extensive treatment from the likes of Quine, Putnam and Kitcher. In this talk, however, I want to focus on a different approach: what can we learn empirically about mathematical thinking and, in particular, what relevance does this have in philosophy? For this purpose, I will present some examples of results from psychology, animalstudies, sociology and the study of mathematical practice, and evaluate their philosophical importance. While such results are often inconclusive or irrelevant, I will contend that there are numerous studies concerning primitive mathematical thinking that we should take seriously in philosophy. In addition, I will formulate the outlines of an epistemological theory that can retain the special character of mathematical knowledge while not making it empirically unfeasible.

On this episode, join Bruce and Josie for an interview with Dr. James Perry from Indiana University. Dr. Perry talks about the public service motivation instilled in him by his parents and how his twin brother provided a connection to the practice of public administration that informed his research. He also talks about the difficulty of maintaining work-life balance and the importance of taking risks in careers and research.  References from the Show: John Perry, (2010). Blueprint for Building Community: Leadership Insights for Good Government. James L. Perry and Lois Recascino Wise (1990). The Motivational Bases of Public Service. James L. Perry, Trent A. Engbers, and So Yun Jun. (2009). Back to the Future? Performance-Related Pay, Empirical Research, and the Perils of Persistence. James L. Perry. (2019). The Journal of Public Affairs Education at 25: An Agenda for the Future.   Subscribe to Academics of PA today! New episodes drop every other Thursday. Follow the podcast on Twitter: @AcademicsofPA Follow the hosts on Twitter: Bruce McDonald: @academicpiracy William Hatcher: @ProfHat Josie Schafer: @SchaferJosie

Before joining the faculty at Harvard University, Dr. Matthew T. Lee spent many years as a criminologist, studying and researching the dark side of the human mind and behavior. Today, Dr. Lee studies concepts of love and is the Director of Empirical Research for the Program on Integrative Knowledge and Human Flourishing at Harvard University. “Why would a missionary continue to go out into a dangerous circumstance, putting their life in jeopardy, contracting deadly diseases, when everyone else pulls out? What keeps them going, and what can the rest of us learn from these spiritual exemplars?”​ - Dr. Matthew T. Lee What We Discuss with Dr. Matthew T. Lee: How Dr. Lee landed a position at Harvard University researching love, after spending many years studying the darkside of human nature. The correlation between altruistic service and personal gratification. Dr. Lee’s work with kids in recovery from alcohol, drugs, and various forms of delinquencies. Systems for creating more ‘loving’ environments in the workplace. How compassionate company cultures help businesses to flourish. ​He is the co-author of The Heart of Religion: Spiritual Empowerment, Benevolence, and the Experience of God’s Love, published by Oxford University Press, in addition to 50+ articles/book chapters and four other books. In episode 110, Dr. Lee shares his insights around concepts of benevolence, compassion, volunteering and experiences of divine love in this riveting episode you’ll want to listen to again. Like this show? Please leave us a review here — even one sentence helps! Consider leaving your Twitter handle so we can thank you personally! (Download Episode Here) ​(Subscribe in iTunes Here) (Connect with CJ) Please Scroll Down for Full Show Notes and Featured Resources! The Two Rule Foundation helps inspire professionals to live gratefully and commit more of their resources to help those in need. The foundation can help you determine who you should give your money to and how. Looking to get more out of all your hard work? Enroll in ThriveMap University, an online video program for professionals. 100% of proceeds are donated to the Two Rule Foundation. More About Dr. Lee ​As an assistant professor researching the dark side of human nature, Matt made a comment to a colleague that he wished to teach a class on love, but because he wasn’t tenured he wasn’t comfortable exploring it with the administration. While he never gave up on his dream, it took him several years of just being grateful for the opportunities that came his way, he was introduced to Dr. Stephen Post, who requested Matt join him at the organization he formed called the Institute for Research on Unlimited Love, funded by the John Templeton Foundation. Without hesitation, Matt took the position as and served as Vice President and Project Director for a $2.3M grant called the Flame of Love aimed on fulfilling the “Great Commandment”—loving and knowing God’s love and then reaching out to love others. “It’s interesting that so many people have had experiences of divine love - real meaningful experiences,” Lee says. “Roughly 80-percent of Americans have this experience that increases their compassion for others, makes them want to reach out to somebody in need, whether it’s a friend, a stranger, or perhaps sometimes even an enemy.” Going further into his research, an overwhelming pattern began to appear. Lee would discover scientific evidence that supported the hypothesis that serving others leads to greater levels of perceived happiness. “What people discover… is when they serve others, they begin to appreciate the sacred quality of life and the sacred quality of relationships that they didn’t fully appreciate before,” Lee says. In the recent years, Dr. Lee has been working with kids in recovery from substance abuse and delinquencies and saw that a lot of them came from adverse backgrounds -- they had been neglected or victimized in some way -- and many of them adapted by becoming depressed, self-centered or narcissistic. However, when these same kids are in recovery and start getting involved in the twin virtues of Love and Service, the world shifts for them. “There’s a difference between work that’s interesting and rewarding, and work that is truly significant,” Lee says. “It may be that the work is truly significant is not the work we do for a paycheck, it’s not what we do for the most of our waking hours that give us meaning.” THANKS, Dr. Matthew T. Lee! If you enjoyed this show with Harvard University Director of Empirical Research Dr. Matthew T. Lee, let CJ know by clicking on the link below. Click here to let CJ know about your number one takeaway from this episode! Mentioned in This Episode: Program on Integrative Knowledge and Human Flourishing The Institute for Research on Unlimited Love The Hidden Gifts of Helping by Dr. Stephen G. Post The Heart of Religion by Dr. Matthew T. Lee, Margaret Paloma, and Dr. Stephen G. Post​​ Compassion and Healing in Medicine and Society by Dr. Gregory Fricchione​​ The Philosophy and Life of Søren Kierkegaard Man’s Search For Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl Benson-Henry Institute For Mind Body Medicine The Compassion Lab Heart to Heart On the Promotion of Human Flourish by Harvard School of Public Health

Software is an essential component to the operation of business information systems, cyber physical systems, and various personal devices. Despite increased awareness and concern about software security threats, current state of the art of software engineering practices are inadequate: new categories of security weaknesses are commonly reported. Challenges that hinder development of secure software start with difficulty of identifying threats and estimating risks. Practices such as incremental software development also pose challenges to software security. This talk discusses through a set of examples how empirical research can help to advance the state of the art of secure software engineering. About the speaker: Lotfi ben Othmane is a Lecturer (aka Teaching Assistant Professor) at Iowa State University, USA. He was the Head of the Department Secure Software Engineering at Fraunhofer Institute for Secure Information Technology, Germany. Dr. ben Othmane has extensive experience in industry and academia in Tunisia, Canada, USA, The Netherlands, and Germany. His research interests include the use of empirical research in secure software development, development of secure systems using an agile approach, and cyber-resilience in connected vehicles. He has about 40 peer-reviewed publications. Dr. ben Othmane received his Ph.D. degree from Western Michigan University, USA, in 2010; M.S. degree from University of Sherbrooke, Canada, in 2000; and B.S degree from University of Sfax, Tunisia, in 1995.

Software is an essential component to the operation of business information systems, cyber physical systems, and various personal devices. Despite increased awareness and concern about software security threats, current state of the art of software engineering practices are inadequate: new categories of security weaknesses are commonly reported. Challenges that hinder development of secure software start with difficulty of identifying threats and estimating risks. Practices such as incremental software development also pose challenges to software security. This talk discusses through a set of examples how empirical research can help to advance the state of the art of secure software engineering.

Dr. Ashley Higgins is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Psychology and Counseling of Immaculata University. She contacted me asking to do a survey of my binge eating audience to help understand the degree to which the actual empirical research on what works for eating disorders today is being accurately disseminated. We had an […] The post The Empirical Research on Binge Eating – A Review appeared first on The Never Binge Again Blog.

Dreaming. We all do it, but what is it really? Are all dreams the same? Do they have meaning? How should we think about dreams and do they influence clinical management of sleep disorders? We talk dreams and dreaming with Dr Jennifer Windt (Philosopher) and Dr Curt Gray (Psychiatrist). Dr Moira Junge (Health Psychologist) and Dr David Cunnington (Sleep Physician) host the monthly podcast, Sleep Talk, talking all things sleep. Brought to you by SleepHub. Leave a review and subscribe via iTunes Audio Timeline: 00:00 - 00:51 Introduction 00:51 -  06:53 What's in the news about sleep? 06:53 - 42:30 Theme: Dreams 09:40 - 30:01 Guest interview - Jennifer Windt: What are dreams? 30:01 - 39:47 Guest interview - Curt Gray: A psychiatrist's perspective on dreams 39:47 - 41:36 Image rehearsal therapy (IRT) 41:36 - 42:11 More information on dreams 42:11 - 44:04 Clinical tip of the month - AIM model 44:04 - 44:36 Pick of the month: David - The Dream Drugstore 44:36 - 45:35 Pick of the month: Moira - Reboot your life - ABC 45:35 - 46:30 What's coming up in the next month? Next episode (December 5th 2016): Let it Go Links mentioned in the podcast: Phoebe's Fall - Investigative podcast series Sleep Health Foundation Sleep Down Under 2016 - meeting home page Sleep Down Under 2016 Day 1 - meeting highlights Sleep Down Under 2016 Day 2 - meeting highlights Sleep Down Under 2016 Day 3 - meeting highlights Lucid dreaming in narcolepsy - Research paper on dreaming in narcolepsy Dreaming: A Conceptual Framework for Philosophy of Mind and Empirical Research - book by Dr Jennifer Windt Dreams and Dreaming - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy The Brains Blog - articles on dreaming by Dr Jennifer Windt Open MIND - MIT Press The Interpretation of Dreams - Sigmund Freud Guidelines for the treatment of nightmare disorder in adults AIM model - excerpt from The Dream Drugstore AIM model - diagram from Nature Reviews Neuroscience The Dream Drugstore - book by J. Allan Hobson Reboot your life Sleep 2017 - Boston June 3-7 2017 World Sleep Congress - Prague Oct 7-11 2017 Sleep Down Under 2017 - Auckland Oct 26-29

Research integrity is a universal foundation of good research. It is supported in the U.S. by a rather elaborate system of oversight mechanisms and instructional approaches. Worldwide, however, it is subject to varying degrees of attention, and there are few standards that are accepted globally. This variation can complicate the work of international research collaborations. This talk draws on Melissa Anderson's empirical research on research integrity, in both domestic and international contexts. It also reflects her role as the co-chair, with Sabine Kleinert of The Lancet, of the latest and upcoming World Conferences on Research Integrity. For an audio podcast preview, listen to The Rock's Podcasts. Melissa S. Anderson is associate dean of graduate educationand professor of higher education at the University of Minnesota. Her work over the past 25 years has been in the areas of scientific integrity, research collaboration, and academy-industry relations, with particular attention to the research environment. She was principal investigator of a study funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health on international research collaborations and co-editor, with Nicholas Steneck, of International Research Collaborations: Much to be Gained, Many Ways to Get in Trouble (Routledge, 2010). Professor Anderson serves on the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and on the editorial boards of Science and Engineering Ethics, the Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, and Accountability in Research. She serves as co-chair, with Sabine Kleinert of The Lancet, of World Conference on Research Integrity (Montreal, May 5-8, 2013 and Rio de Janeiro, 2015).

“People know worldwide what fabrication, falsification, plagiarism are,” says Dr. Melissa Anderson, Associate Dean of Graduate Education and Professor of Higher Education at University of Minnesota. So a pressing question in international research is: what are the structural issues that could explain the variation in research misconduct between the United States and other foreign countries? People often highlight cultural differences as the key explanatory factor for this variation. However, Dr. Anderson believes that people jump too quickly to cultural differences, while overlooking the tremendous variation in standards and codes of ethics. Thus, international research ethics should track the differences in laws and regulatory standards in science (the organization of science, funding sources, training programs, etc.) in order to understand the source of international research misconduct and also, in order to foster future international standards of research integrity. Who is Melissa Anderson? Melissa S. Anderson is associate dean of graduate educationand professor of higher education at the University of Minnesota. Her work over the past 25 years has been in the areas of scientific integrity, research collaboration, and academy-industry relations, with particular attention to the research environment. She was principal investigator of a study funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health on international research collaborations and co-editor, with Nicholas Steneck, of International Research Collaborations: Much to be Gained, Many Ways to Get in Trouble (Routledge, 2010). Professor Anderson serves on the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and on the editorial boards of Science and Engineering Ethics, the Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, and Accountability in Research. She serves as co-chair, with Sabine Kleinert of The Lancet, of World Conference on Research Integrity (Montreal, May 5-8, 2013 and Rio de Janeiro, 2015).

Research Integrity: Individual Decisions, Global Concerns Research integrity is a universal foundation of good research. It is supported in the U.S. by a rather elaborate system of oversight mechanisms and instructional approaches. Worldwide, however, it is subject to varying degrees of attention, and there are few standards that are accepted globally. This variation can complicate the work of international research collaborations. This talk draws on Melissa Anderson's empirical research on research integrity, in both domestic and international contexts. It also reflects her role as the co-chair, with Sabine Kleinert of The Lancet, of the latest and upcoming World Conferences on Research Integrity. Melissa S. Anderson Melissa S. Anderson Melissa S. Anderson is associate dean of graduate educationand professor of higher education at the University of Minnesota. Her work over the past 25 years has been in the areas of scientific integrity, research collaboration, and academy-industry relations, with particular attention to the research environment. She was principal investigator of a study funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health on international research collaborations and co-editor, with Nicholas Steneck, of International Research Collaborations: Much to be Gained, Many Ways to Get in Trouble (Routledge, 2010). Professor Anderson serves on the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and on the editorial boards of Science and Engineering Ethics, the Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, and Accountability in Research. She serves as co-chair, with Sabine Kleinert of The Lancet, of World Conference on Research Integrity (Montreal, May 5-8, 2013 and Rio de Janeiro, 2015).

2012/12/10. Brooks discusses research methodologies and promising practices in active learning classrooms.

2012/12/10. Brooks discusses research methodologies and promising practices in active learning classrooms.

This study focuses on the development of a complex web-based learning environment aimed at promoting the acquisition of applicable knowledge in the context of studying empirical research methods at university. This learning environment was then modified further on an empirical basis. The main focus of the present article is to describe the conceptualisation of the learning environment and research activities which were guided by an integrative research paradigm. The learning environment consisted of highly structured, complex texts in which the process of empirical research was illustrated in a detailed manner. By combining these texts with other instructional measures, the learning environment is given a flexible hypertext-structure. The effectiveness of the learning environment as a whole was investigated in three studies (two evaluation studies in the field and one experimental study in the laboratory). It was demonstrated that the additional instructional measures (e.g. a specific feedback-guidance and time-management measures) were not effective. The importance of cognitive, motivational and emotional learning prerequisites for the successful utilisation of the learning environment was highlighted. The implementation of special training and additional preparatory modules is recommended in order to optimise the fit between students' prerequisites and learning environm