OK! Let’s squish some #animalwelfare#science into your day! Who has heard about cognitive bias testing in animals?
Cognitive bias testing is pretty much a way of testing if animals are optimistic or pessimistic. If you are used to experiencing good things, you tend to be optimistic, if you’re used to bad stuff happening, you’re usually pessimistic🔎We use pee a lot in #animalwelfare#science!
If animals experience good lives, we expect them to be optimistic when tested. Tests can take different formats but usually associate a good outcome (food!) with a cue (eg high tone sound) and a comparatively neutral/unattractive outcome (eg water) with a different cue (low tone)
There is a learning stage to associate cue (eg tone) with outcomes (+ve/neutral). Once associated, the cognitive bias test starts asking the animal to respond to cues that are progressively in the grey area between cues (middle tone) and we watch their response.
Optimistic animals will continue responding to ‘grey zone’ cues (eg lower tones) expecting the positive outcome more than pessimistic animals, acting as a gauge of mood/emotion, how they are experiencing life & #animalwelfare. Cognitive bias has been shown in 🐕🐒🐥🐑🐝🐀 🐖
2/Our findings suggest that student evaluations of teaching seem to measure *conformity with gendered expectations* rather than teaching quality
A cause for concern given the integration of SET data into performance profiles, and management and organisation of teaching practice
3/Before I go on, in terms of the necessarily binary reporting, it is very important to say here that we recognise the ‘pluralities inherent in gender(s)’ that complicate simple binary approaches to gender (Weerawardhana, 2018, p.189), and we do discuss this in the paper
On important background, in March 2020 the IOC recognised harassment and abuse as a current human rights challenge, and in particular recognised that LGBTQI+ athletes are at “particular risk of harm and structural discrimination”
3/n
The IOC now recognise female eligibility regulation *as an organisational violence issue* and as systemic discrimination
[I'll do another tweet thread on this later, drawing on my own research on this]
I want to address a narrative that we see around women’s sport and inclusion (particularly from those who seek to exclude trans women & women with sex variations from women’s sport), and how this narrative is part of a bigger pattern that functions to keep women small
2/n
I have been hearing more frequently the narrative that women's sport apparently exists as a 'protected category' so that women can win (because, on this account, without it no woman will ever win again)
3/n
This is:
a) *not* the reason why women's sport exists as a category,
and b) it is *not* true that no woman will ever win again.
This narrative is profoundly paternalistic and keeps women small.