One of the best things about advice giving is sharing resources and connecting with others offering support.
One of the worst is competitiveness and obstruction over advice giving where people want to promote themselves more than a cause and thus sideline others.
It’s particularly acute when many raising awareness are doing so because of lived experiences. It’s frustrating when you feel your messages are not heard. And devastating when others in the same area you think will welcome you and amplify your work aim to block it and you instead
As an Agony Aunt I’m used to the competitiveness, cliqueyness and obstructions you find when working with charities and awareness groups. But folk new to this may be shocked to find barriers not collaboration. It extends to all areas of awareness raising and advice giving
So if you’re planning on raising any kind of awareness be prepared to get additional support for yourself and colleagues to navigate prickly spaces.
If you’re raising awareness it needs to be a genuine commitment to a cause, not a platform just to showcase you and your work
I spend a large amount of time pushing information that others could share but they won’t because it’s not “their brand”. Or navigating infighting I’ve no idea about, such as promoting one charity only to find another is now obstructive because they’ve got a beef with one another
If your job is to share information, which mine is, so long as that information is accurate and isn’t harmful then it needs passing on. It should not be some endless popularity contest where certain issues, organisations and individuals get the attention at the expense of others.
These situations are self perpetuating. If a charity is rude to me because they feel I promoted a rival it makes me less likely to share their work.
I will do so because the end goal is getting information out there and that’s more important. Still sucks
Same with individuals who you know are doing similar work but you’ll spot the ones who are generous with resources and the ones who are out for themselves. All of them have stuff a wider audience needs but sharing the work of someone who isn’t collegiate feels icky.
I know this is all down to diminishing funds, overburdened organisations/individuals, and people working through trauma. There are reasons but it doesn’t make obstructive, selfish or sabotaging behaviour acceptable.
But it’s extremely dispiriting to watch individuals and organisations twist themselves into a pretzel rather than promote anyone other than themselves or favoured organisations when collectively we need to be passing on as much information and advice as possible
I have three reasons for not sharing information/promoting organisations 1. I didn’t know about them 2. I forgot 3. They’re promoting harmful practices
1 and 2 are easily addressed and 3 is and always has been non-negotiable
I do often share stuff through gritted teeth because while the individual/organisation producing it isn’t collegiate the info/advice they have will help others. It’s way more pleasant and I think advice feels more authentic when there’s mutual respect
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today's #ResearchTip is imposter syndrome is more than feeling you don't belong. It can be a belief you don't deserve what you've achieved. That good things aren't really yours, they cannot last, or shouldn't be enjoyed. A quick 🧵on how to cope. #AcademicChatter #AcademicTwitter
Reflecting on our journey into academia can be positive. We may find ourselves amazed or happy when we consider just how far we've come, especially if we break down and note our achievements along the way. But some - or a lot of the time - this may be challenging. Why?
It may be due to our past. If we've lived with or through exclusion, prejudice, poverty, insecurity, violence, or other negative experiences then believing in ourselves, having confidence, or a sense of pride or self-worth can be difficult or impossible.
Today's #ResearchTip is a 🧵all about why teaching methods comparatively (qual vs. quant) is a red flag - and why you've probably been taught really badly without even knowing it. (This tip's not a judgement on the QT below btw). #AcademicChatter #AcademicTwitter #HigherEd #MedEd
The quoted tweet shows two images from forthcoming movies. Qual is represented by actor Margot Robbie as Barbie (in vibrant pinks and blue accent colours) and Quant as Cillian Murphy as Oppenheimer (severe, black and white). Barbie is qual, Oppenheimer is quant. #HigherEd #MedEd
The quote tweet has been reacted to enthusiastically, helpfully illustrating how the qual/quant discourse goes
- qual is fluffy and nonsense, quant is precise and clear
- everyday sexism about qual
- quant's better than qual (or vice versa)
- lack of wider contextual awareness
Improving numeracy "to find the best mortgage deal" - mate, most young people are paid so poorly they can't afford to move out of their home. And their families are struggling financially as a consequence. Can your numeracy teaching fix that?
Not a single mention of not enough maths teachers, teachers under huge pressure and stress, rising behaviour problems in schools, lack of SEND provision, nothing about early years. What a joke this lot are. They don't care about education or young people at all.
It's worth noting that Year 11s are currently in the process of applying to college and I bet loads of them will hear this news, panic, assume it's already happening, and now change courses or want to avoid continuing in education. More pressure for schools to deal with.
Make time to read this today. My take is if we taught research methods appropriately we might not need methodological review boards. But given how bad much research is (ESPECIALLY surveys) this is definitely worth considering. If not a formal board, then a feedback review system
We separate methods from ethics and focus on maximising funding and response rates and getting published. All else in between - including what method you picked and whether it's suited to your participants and research question - are secondary 😠
I'm seeing an increasing number of suggestions that we need regulatory bodies to assess research methods, research integrity and more. Which I fear will not improve how we teach and do research (what we need) but will just be perceived as a hoop to jump through.
My maths teacher told me I was thick and, in Year 11, had me sit at the front of the class by her desk as punishment for not trying hard enough. I did badly at school so did have to continue with maths until I was 18. Failed two years worth of resits as well. Hated it.
Inevitably, whenever I post about my struggles with maths people say 'it'll be different now'. But it won't be because I had an undiagnosed learning difficulty at school that hasn't magically cured itself. I can't do it. Excelling in other areas doesn't mean I'm lazy in maths.
Having support to use numbers and organisation in everyday life would be very helpful. Endless, repetitive maths teaching in the hope I'd eventually get something I'll never understand was not. How do I manage doing research? If it's quantitative I work with statisticians 😄
A quick heads-up that 'Blue Monday' will be upon us soon and already I see coaches, therapists and influencers using it to promote themselves/their services and journalists preparing pieces on it. It's a bunch of nonsense with a horrible backstory. Be wary of anyone sharing it.
People either don't know the history of this day, meaning they're happily promoting their services based on something they failed to do due diligence on. Or they know but don't care because they want to capitalise on the day. Either is unfortunate.
The tricky part of crappy 'Blue Monday' is it has taken on its own momentum so any kind of challenge to it gives it more oxygen. And most people see it as just a bit of fun so won't stop using it. Worryingly a lot of those folk are mental/health charities who should know better.