The downside of blogging

I was recently at a dinner party where I was talking to a fellow who was very anti-blogging. His position was basically that communication is context dependent, and the internet is the antithesis of context dependent communication. I'm sympathetic to his position; in a broad, context-free setting like the internet I think it is nearly impossible to make statements that aren't somehow naïve or asinine, and as a result I have been increasingly attempting to communicate with images. I have always appreciated Barthes' assertion that photos say nothing more than "this has been," and I find the notion that photos offer a 'silent discourse' attractive, or at least intriguing (thus my fascination with Edward Burtynsky's pictorial/textual ambivalence to ecological disaster). Ultimately, however, I acknowledge that attempts to communicate with images are no less naïve than attempts with text in the internet's context free environment. Images without textual anchors may be considered silent in one sense, but, as Susan Sontag has noted, in another sense they make extremely loud ethical statements. Finally, even if images could be considered truly 'silent', there are hefty ethical implications to the act of silence.

I started this post describing a personal conversation about the importance of context in conversation. Ironically I have now transported that conversation's content from a closed-format communication into an open-format communication (this blog). If I have done so I think it must be because I still believe there are important things we could be saying to people outside of our immediate spatial and social environments, and one of blogging's strong points is that it allows us to do just this. So here is my resolution for this blog: to return to textual communication, and to speak to whomever wishes to listen. Just don't take what I write out of context.

Why We Blog

The Ecodrift blog has been quiet lately, but there's been a lot going on in our lab: PhD students defending (hopefully, that will include me someday), new students joining the lab, and the launch of the Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science.

In my own little corner, I've been learning a lot about R while coordinating a series of statistics workshops in R for our department. I hope to post more about this soon, but I've been thinking a lot recently about my workflow in R, and how to organize all my files (aka Project Management).

While reading other blogs about R and workflow, I found a link to Drew Conway's list of ten reasons why grad students should blog. Hey! We're grad students (& Post-Docs)! We Blog! Ok, we share a blog, but this has advantages over trying to forge an individual identity on the web:

• We can provide more content as a group than individually
• We don't have to try to compete for readers' attention: because there really aren't enough blogs already out there (*sarcasm*).
• We can collaborate on content, or provide direct feedback, even having discussions all in one place!

Why do members of our lab blog? Many of the reasons mentioned in Drew Conway's list certainly apply, but I would add that it also serves as a record of progress along our scientific journey in various areas: snapshots of how we were thinking at the time. Like an academic paper, but less rigorous and not peer-reviewed (and therefore faster but less reliable). It reminds me of a McGill yearbook I recently found from 1978 in Thomson House, including a summary of News from that year, and major events on campus: I was struck my how little some parts of lower campus have changed even since then (McGill is OLD), and how much the fashions and administrative issues have changed. There was an article from one professor predicting that the paper publishing business was going to get too expensive, compared to microfiche cards that cost pennies and could easily be used by students with a microfiche reader for a mere $100! Ok, maybe he hadn't heard of the internet yet, but that just goes to show that even expert predictions often fail. I prefer to stick to explanation rather than prognostication, but Your Mileage May Vary.

Scientific knowledge is characterized by historical facticity, and today's truth may become tomorrow's urban legend: do we act on what we know, or keep waiting to resolve uncertainty? Blogging provides a record of the thought, reasoning and discussion process that eventually turns into peer-reviewed publications, media reports, etc. and becomes part of the public record. So, blogging provides more fodder for historians and philosophers of science and provides people a peek into the developmental process of "Scientific knowledge".

This also suggests another reason to blog: to spark philosophical discussions that are difficult to publish in a forum read by scientific peers. It sometimes feels like scientists take the philosophical aspects of their work for granted all too often, despite a few of us jumping up and down about how your philosophical approach can affect the way you interpret results, or even the questions that you ask in the first place. Science - at least academic science - is just as social and cultural as it is academic. I may not have anything novel to say about it, but it is something that occasionally bears repeating to provoke thought in others.

So, blog away my fellow Biodiversity Scientists, and join the party. I'm waiting for you to blow my mind.

Life as a Postdoc

After several years of jobs being scarce, this year has been promising for those of us looking for a full time job in academia. But interviews have come and gone, and no golden ticket yet.

I am preparing for my next interview which includes not just the job talk, but also a chalk talk. I’ve never seen a chalk talk, and as far as I can tell, it is like a round-table discussion on your future research projects, but with timelines, goals, and funding strategies outlined on a board. I’m terrified.

I have plenty of preparation done, as I’ve though a lot about my future research and success of my lab, but mostly it’s in the form of written proposals. And it’s written down for a reason – 2 actually – firstly, I have a horrible memory, and second, I’m a better writer than I am a salesman.

The fact that this interview is also in the States means that there is a whole other level of insecurity; not being totally sure of how NFS grants are awarded (versus NSERC), what grad student culture is like, or what do you do for 3 months if you have a 9 month appointment.

The lab has been great in supporting me though. On Monday many Gonzalites showed up to eat donuts and hear my job talk. If only the hiring committee could be bought as easily. Mmmmm donuts!

Hearing Our Voice: The Stigma of Stammering By John Evans

The following is a piece written by John Evans - a trustee of the British Stammering Association - and relates to our sciSCREENing of The King's Speech last night.

My contribution to this debate comes from two directions:

First I want to give my reactions to the film based on my own experiences of stammering, and receiving speech therapy. Second, I want to talk about how this film might help to change public attitudes towards stammering. This is perhaps the first major film that has treated stammering as the frustrating and painful disability it is, rather than as a source of amusement.

I commend Colin Firth for his fine performance. He made me feel most uncomfortable, and I understand he felt very uncomfortable himself as he acted out the part. In one interview about the film he has said, “It had an effect on my body, this film, particularly headaches.” Stammering has then been called an “iceberg”. The part of the stammer that can be seen is represented by the part of the iceberg that is out of the water. However, by far, the bigger part is the shame and guilt induced by the stammering, lying below the water. A good actor, like Colin Firth, is able to portray that shame and guilt so that everyone can feel it. His performance was good and it was truthful.

As we know, stammering is seen as a bit of joke in so many films. But the oldest joke about stammering is a rather sad one. The joke is that there is a cure for stammering that works 100% of the time – guaranteed. What is it? The answer is that all you need to do is to stop talking! That is exactly what many people who stammer find themselves doing - they become retiring people whose voices are not heard. For me then the high point of the film was to hear Albert Windsor, cry out, “I have a voice” - and to know that he did make that voice heard: a voice not of perfection, or grand oratory, but of dignity and courage. Oscar nominee, David Seidler, who wrote the screenplay of the film, has stammered all his life, and I feel sure that scene draws on his own life’s journey.

But what helped the future King find his voice, and become a symbol of a Britain struggling against adversity? From my experience I would like to mention three things, which the film brings out well:

First, his own sense of who he was - that he mattered, that his values mattered and that it was important for him to live his life according to those values. He felt he had a destiny that was bigger than his feelings, bigger than his fears. He accepted that he needed to fulfil that destiny as best he could, with his handicap. He was, of course, never able to remove his stammer completely, and after some time, he probably never expected he would. One of the hardest things about going for speech therapy for the first time as an adult is when you say, “Please tell me how to make this go away – I will do anything – I just want to be normal” only to be told, “At your age, it is probably not going to go away. All we can do is to help you to manage it.” That is not what you want to hear – yet it is often possible to manage a stammer very well, to reach an accommodation with it, and to live a happy and fulfilled life.

Second, I would point to Albert’s determination and his willingness to work hard, to call himself into question, and to accept a great deal of distress. He initially gave up on the therapy because it was so difficult for him to deal with that pain - and I am not referring to the scene about the marbles!

Third, there was something I would call, “enabling love”. There was the unconditional love of his wife, known for so many years as the Queen Mother. There was the expert friendship and care of Lionel Logue. We are not privy to the exact range of methods he used with Albert Windsor, but on the web-site of the British Stammering Association, you can find an article by a man whom he treated, Richard Oerton. Richard was a child when he received treatment from an elderly Lionel Logue. He vividly recalls Logue’s kindness and acceptance.

Stammering is a condition that does not respond very well to will-power on its own. However, when effort is applied in the right direction, and when we are liberated by that mysterious thing called love – or grace – then we can learn to find our true voice and make it heard. What traps us all in unhelpful behaviour patterns is the opposite – ridicule, humiliation and shame, leading to secrecy and withdrawal. Laughing at people who stammer tends to lock them into their stammering. So many people who stammer bear the scars of ridicule in school from teachers acting, often with the best of intentions, like Albert’s father, King George V, and from other schoolchildren acting … like schoolchildren.

The effect of the film on attitudes to stammering has been palpable. Stammering is becoming something that can now be talked about openly. At least one stammerer has been portrayed as a hero. However, the message of the film will need to be sustained once the Oscars are over. That is why the British Stammering Association has launched a continuing “Appeal for change”. Part of this is to make some basic facts about stammering known, for example:

• Stammering affects 5% of all children and 1% of all adults across all cultures in the world, and as far as we know across all of the ages of mankind
• Stammering affects many more males than females
• Stammering is not due to being weak-minded or congenitally shy
• Those who do stammer generally just need a bit more time to express themselves. Some would like you to help them with a word they can’t say – most would not (especially if you get it wrong!) One thing to consider doing is to ask if they would like help
• When identified in very early childhood, it is often possible to correct stammering completely - provided the necessary services are there.

I trust and believe that people will look back on The King’s Speech not just as an inspiring and successful film, but as an example of how the media has been able to influence our culture, and as an event that changed public perceptions about stammering for the better.

If you would like to find out more about the appeal John is referring to, please visit the British Stammering Association's website here.

Stammering and The King's Speech By Calum Delaney

The following is an essay written by Calum Delaney from the Speech and Language Therapy at UWIC and relates to our sciSCREENing of The King's Speech last night.

The film illustrates that there’s just so far you can go with silence, before people start to feel awkward. This seems to be one of the dominant features of stammering, certainly as presented in the film. It is unlike many other disorders of communication where there is typically something going on that the listener is able to work with. In trying to understand the communication disruption of stuttering, it is probably useful to consider the experience of the listener as well as that of the person who stammers.

The listener’s response in an initial encounter with a dysfluent person is often one of surprise – “what’s going on?” “what should I do?” The listener’s expectations have been violated. The normal pacing of the listener’s non-verbal responses (eye-gaze, facial expression, gesture) is disrupted, often leaving both floundering in the silence. Once aware of the likelihood of disruption, other responses emerge – irritation, impatience, embarrassment. Both speaker and listener are conscious of being trapped into an encounter in which both parties have a diminished ability to control its course. Both are dominated by the stammer. It is this communication dynamic that is repeatedly portrayed in the film. In this case it is further complicated by the social roles of the speaker and listeners. The Duke of York has fewer of the options open to most stammerers for avoiding or otherwise managing difficult communication encounters. Most of his listeners are equally constrained in the options available to them for managing their own sense of awkwardness.

How should we understand the dysfluent speech behaviour produced by people who stutter? Most speech and language therapists would make a distinction between core and secondary behaviours. Core behaviours are the very rapid and often momentary interruptions in the flow of speech that most people identify as stammering. They are generally thought of as involuntary and to arise from some sort of physiological or organic cause. They are usually differentiated into repetitions, prolongations and blocks, and these may be located at one or more of the levels of respiration, phonation and articulation. Repetitions, prolongations and blocks are also thought to be representative of increasing degrees of stammering severity. In the film the speech of the Duke of York tended towards the severe end of this continuum.

Secondary behaviours are those behaviours that become layered over the core behaviours and are often understood as learned reactions to those core behaviours. In trying to cope with the core behaviours, the dysfluent speaker discovers other behaviours that seem to help him (it is more often him than her) to move his speech along. These are things like facial tics or pitch changes that enable him to escape from the stuttering moment, or “starters”, postponement or timing behaviours that enable him to prevent the core behaviour occurring. These behaviours are typically slower, involve larger movements and are usually seen as being the result of classical and operant conditioning – they are learned. For these reasons they are also seen as easier to work with and to eliminate from the stuttering behaviour. This is helpful, as they are also often the more distracting aspect of dysfluent speech. In the film the Duke of York showed fewer of these secondary behaviours.

There is a third aspect of stuttering that contributes to the difficulties that a dysfluent person experiences. This is the feelings and attitudes that accompany the stammer and are bound up with it. This dimension of the stutterer’s experience was consistently portrayed throughout the film. Dysfluent speech can give rise to feelings such as frustration, embarrassment and hostility and negative attitudes towards individuals, situations and personal aspirations. Anticipatory feelings of anxiety and fear, and expectations of difficulty and negative reactions, can also precipitate or exacerbate dysfluent speech moments. It is often difficult to disentangle the causal relationships between these, and it is often this aspect of the stammerer’s experience of her difficulty that is the most salient. Even when she is being fluent, the person who stutters will often still see her communication as being dominated by the fact that she is dysfluent, or a “stammerer”.

Modern speech and language therapy is often directed towards each of these three components of stammering in a fairly systematic way. The focus of the intervention would reflect the weighting of the components in the overall presentation of behaviours and responses. The interventions would also be more directly related to the nature of the presenting behaviours and theoretical understandings of how these are constituted. Core behaviours, which are probably the least responsive to intervention, would be addressed through attempts to modify the ways in which the dysfluent speaker breathes, initiates and maintains vocalisation and executes articulatory movements. It was this aspect of management that was mostly portrayed in the earlier stages of the film. However, these techniques were implemented fairly randomly with little consideration being given to the presenting behaviours. The influence of these techniques in the film may be explained by what is referred to as the “distraction effect” – stuttering behaviour can often be reduced by anything which alters the way in which the dysfluent individual speaks. The effect can be variable though, and it is seldom long-lasting. Secondary behaviours are typically managed using classical and operant conditioning techniques to reduce or eliminate them. The focus of attitude modification is to explore alternative and possibly more helpful ways of viewing and responding to the stutter and also more broadly to communication, interaction and self-perception. In the later stages of the film it was this aspect of the king’s difficulty that began to be explored in the relationship between him and Lionel Logue.

The film showed that, in the case of the king (and often with many people who stammer) dysfluency is not always something that can be made to go away. It is a part of the individual, it is variable, and it is (sometimes unpredictably) influenced by multiple interacting factors. Fluency requires maintenance. It is hard work. It demands resilience and persistence. But that may be to give stuttering more attention than it is due. George VI was more than his stutter and most of the characters saw this, especially his therapist. People who stutter are similar to everyone else, beset with fears and anxieties and possessing varying capabilities with which to manage them. They also possess the same degree of insight and wit in recognising and responding to these in themselves and others. They just speak a little differently.

A Churchillian view of the 1930s? Cinematic representations of politics and monarchy in 'The King's Speech' By Gary Love

The following is an essay written by Dr. Gary Love from the Cardiff School of History, Archaeology and Religion and relates to our sciSCREENing of The King's Speech yesterday.

‘The King’s Speech’ focuses mainly on the relationship between King George VI and his speech therapist Lionel Logue, but the film also introduces audiences to other important historical characters, namely Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain, and Winston Churchill, and the influential role of the new mass media (radio, film, and the popular press) in Britain. I plan to say a few words about the historical accuracy of the film before moving on to comment on the role of the new mass media in relation to other established modes of communication, which had dominated the Victorian and Edwardian periods.

The film portrays Edward VIII and George VI in ways that most historians would now recognise, but its brief depiction of Stanley Baldwin and the broader political scene is wide of the mark. In short, the filmmakers are woefully inaccurate with regard to Baldwin and the National government’s policy of appeasement, which is disappointing because it would have made little difference to the overall cinematic experience if they had paid more attention to historical detail.

Stanley Baldwin did not retire in shame in 1937 as the film suggests. It is simply wrong to argue that Baldwin misjudged the Nazi menace and that this was the main reason for his resignation as Prime Minister after the Coronation of George VI. As a historian, the moment in the film when Baldwin states ‘Churchill was right all along’ made me cringe because this is a classic example of accepting a Churchillian narrative of the 1930s at face value. In fact, Baldwin’s reputation remained high until 1940. It was only the publication of the book Guilty Men by ‘Cato’ and Churchill’s war memoirs that destroyed Baldwin’s and the National government’s reputation. In the end, they took much of the blame for ‘failing’ to rearm during the 1930s and this view was sustained by historians until the 1960s. As we can see, it still gains currency today and we should question why this is the case. Perhaps the filmmakers had an American audience in mind when choosing to elevate Churchill from the political fringe to the centre of British political and monarchical life.

As recent scholarship has shown, Baldwin was the chief architect of a Christian, anti-totalitarian message, which he delivered in his speeches, radio broadcasts, and on film from the early 1930s. In the political world, Baldwin was the first to use and adapt successfully to radio and film. Baldwin was the unrivalled political media star of his age, but after the Second World War his political reputation lay in ruins. Undoubtedly, Baldwin laid the rhetorical groundwork for Churchill’s unifying messages during the Second World War. Nor is it the case that he purposefully neglected rearmament. After all, he was the first to warn in Parliament that ‘the bomber will always get through’ and he had accepted that Britain’s defensive frontier lay on the banks of the river Rhine. True, Baldwin’s reputation suffered in 1935. After campaigning during the general election in support of collective security in view of Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia, he soon abandoned the League of Nations. This was interoperated by many as an act of political deception, but Baldwin’s handling of the ‘Abdication Crisis’ in 1936 restored his reputation. On the eve of his retirement, Baldwin was once more characterised as the archetypical English gentlemen who governed genuinely in the national interest, the ideal figurehead for a national government. If he had any regrets they related to handing on the British ‘torch of freedom’ to his successor Neville Chamberlain. Baldwin recognised that his successor lacked the common touch, which had been a key feature of his own leadership.

A few examples should illustrate my point. On 20 May 1937, a few weeks after the Coronation, Thomas Jones, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, wrote in his diary: ‘Outside on the pavement, on the Foreign Office side, people were waiting on the chance of a glimpse of him and earlier in the week there had been crowds shouting, “We want Baldwin,” but he had not responded. He has ceased to be thought of as leader of the Tory Party and stands out as the national leader “par excellence”.’ Of his retirement, the writer, journalist, and broadcaster, Harold Nicholson proclaimed, ‘No man has ever left in such a blaze of affection.’ This was a common view shared both by political and educated elites and by the general public. On 9 February 1938, Viscount Hinchingbrooke wrote an account of a private meeting with Baldwin: ‘[Baldwin’s] conscience is clear about rearmament…He believes sincerely that we started rearming as soon as we could and the country could not have stood it a moment sooner, nor had the Government the information to acquaint the country with.’

Baldwin retired in 1937 simply because he was an old man (he was 70) who had been at the forefront of British politics for most of the interwar period. He thought about retiring much earlier in the 1930s but he felt that it was his duty to remain in power to bring the ‘Abdication Crisis’ to an acceptable conclusion. Now he was happy to relinquish his role as PM. Churchill was not a central figure in this story nor was he an important adviser to King George VI during 1937-39. Indeed, during the ‘Abdication Crisis’ Churchill had played a major role in advising Edward VIII on how to stay on the throne. He was seen as a troublemaker who was bent on disrupting Baldwin’s honourable efforts to secure the retention of public values and constitutional propriety. If anyone should have advised George VI on his broadcasts it should have been Baldwin who had mastered the medium like no other politician. Churchill had few occasions to broadcast in the 1930s because he was denied access by Conservative Central Office which selected Conservative political speakers.

In one scene in the film there is a wall-poster enjoining people to ‘Stand by the King’. This was produced by the fascist Blackshirt newspaper. There was some fear at the time that Churchill and other political rogues such as the fascist leader Oswald Mosley would work to construct a King’s party to rival the National government and the crowning of George VI. Of course, nothing like this ever occurred, but it was not until the war years that Churchill assumed much importance and established a genuine rapport with George VI. So the imposition of Churchill on much of this story at the expense of Baldwin, not to mention Chamberlain who barely gets a mention, is largely based on a retrospective popularisation of Churchill as the ‘greatest Briton’.

However, what the film does recapture rather successfully is the response of educated elites in the 1930s to the importance of radio as a national unifying medium, which could be used for the projection of Christian values and democratic constitutionalism against revolutionary ideas of both left and right. The interwar years saw the development of a democratic and commercial media culture, which responded to the franchise reforms of 1918 and 1928. Britain was now a democracy and educated elites could no longer dictate policy or define the parameters of political debate like they had done during the long nineteenth century. Some elites refused to engage with new media because they judged its sensationalism to be unworthy, but others sought to adjust to it and use it to further their ambitions. In the film, you get a good sense of how elites lamented a by-gone age. George V recognises broadcasting as a necessity but he cannot hide his contempt for the changing role of the monarchy and his closer relationship with his subjects. Likewise, Archbishop Lang describes radio as ‘a Pandora’s box’ and he makes sure to edit the newsreels before they are broadcast.

Yet as the film also recognises, the role of the monarchy and its ability to communicate with the general public was vital in this period. Although the monarchy’s political power had declined, it gained in popularity during 1935-37, a period that saw the Silver Jubilee (a new addition to monarchical pageantry), George V’s death, the ‘Abdication Crisis’, and the Coronation of George VI. A resurgence of royalist feeling amongst the general public even inspired the creation of the social research organisation, Mass Observation, which sought to explain why this had occurred. Certainly, this popular feeling for monarchy lasted until the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953. Indeed, it is at least arguable that such feeling continues to exist today as millions lined the streets of London during both her Silver Jubilee in 1977 and her Golden Jubilee in 2002. George VI’s Christmas broadcast was extremely popular, but it was meant to end the tradition once and for all. It was only on the eve of war that George VI was persuaded to embrace it again. In the end, his D-Day broadcast proved to be the most listened-to broadcast of the war years.

Stammering: Lost for Words

The Guardian recently published a piece by Keith Austin, in which The King's Speech is described by the British Stammering Association as a “once-in-a-generation moment to create change and to increase awareness”.

Read the whole article here.

The screening of The King's Speech on Tuesday 25th January is now sold out. However, if you have been unable to get tickets, please do attend the discussion, in First Space, Chapter, starting straight after the film at approximately 8pm.

The speakers at the discussion will be: Dr William Housley (School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University), Dr Gary Love (School of History, Archeaology and Religion, Cardiff University), Calum Delaney (Programme Leader and Head of Centre, Speech and Language Therapy, UWIC), and John Evans (British Stammering Association). The discussion will cover experiences of stammering, concepts of language and communication, speech pathology, political rhetoric and the mediated public sphere, and the impact of radio and newsreels on public life in the first half of the 20th century.

The King's Speech - new speaker added

We have added a speaker to our next sciSCREEN event - a screening and discussion of the Golden Goble winning The King's Speech on Tuesday the 25th January at 6pm.

John Evans (The British Stammering Association) has been added to our line-up of Dr William Housley (School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University), Dr Gary Love (School of History, Archeaology and Religion, Cardiff University), and Calum Delaney (Programme Leader and Head of Centre, Speech and Language Therapy, UWIC). The discussion will cover experiences of stammering, concepts of language and communication, speech pathology, political rhetoric and the mediated public sphere, and the impact of radio and newsreels on public life in the first half of the 20th century.

Tickets for the film can be bought from Chapter. The discussion is free.

Happy New Year from sciSCREEN

Happy New Year. As you all know our next sciSCREEN will be on Tuesday January 25th from 6pm when we will be screening 'The King's Speech'. For all of you wanting to keep up-to-date with what is going on- we have now set up a Twitter account at www.twitter.com/sciSCREEN. Other ways to keep in touch with us are by joining our mailing list sciscreen[at]cardiff.ac.uk or joining our facebook group by searching for Cardiff sciSCREEN.

To find out more about the senior partners in Cardiff sciSCREEN please visit the MRC Centre for Neuropsychiatric Genetics and Genomics' website at www.cf.ac.uk/cngg or visit their public engagement website www.genomicminds.co.uk/ where you can find out more about the origins of Cardiff sciSCREEN, and please visit the Centre for the Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics (Cesagen) at www.genomicsnetwork.ac.uk/cesagen and the Wales Gene Park at www.wgp.cf.ac.uk/.

Recent sciSCREEN events have been kindly sponsored by the Cardiff University Community Engagement Team.

Hope to see you at The King's Speech on the 25th. Please note that the film is proving popular and so we advise people to book in advance.