Author Archives: The Backstage Academic

Social science researcher (views my own), PhD researcher looking at masculinity in extreme environments, vocalist, writer, podcaster and occasional film maker.

The Conversation: Succeeding at Publication

I recently had the pleasure of being invited by the Nuffield Foundation (through their ‘Emerging Researchers Network’) to take part in a comprehensive training course from The Conversation‘s subsidiary Universal Impact. Thus, I thought it would be useful to write up some of my reflections on the lessons gleaned there with the hope they might be useful to the countless other early career researchers who are in the same space as me. Now for those that don’t know, The Conversation is one of the most well respected and well-read, researcher-friendly, publications around and is read by millions across the globe annually. If like me, you feel you have much to ‘say’ from a research point of view but no idea how to go about it, then you might find these insights as useful as I did.

Researchers as the new Public Figures

I think for me the first lesson was quite a personal one. The days of ‘objective’ researchers being personally removed from their work are gone. Whether we like it or not, we are increasingly expected to become pseudo-public figures and advocates for our respective frontiers. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has some reservations about that, we’re not all comfortable with bringing the science to (at times) critical audiences. So, this advice is in two parts, firstly this means that you have to be part of the story, when you are pitching an idea to any media source like The Conversation it’s critical to emphasise why you (yes you) are so suitable. Secondly, you might be hesitant with the label of expert, but the way I see it, if we don’t fill this void with cool-headed facts and evidence-based practice, then bad actors will fill that vacuum. This is why places like The Conversation are so important, and as I realised, you’ll have a lot more control in the process than you’d imagine.

The trainer talked about the lifecycle of a story, which included a whole host of editorial support to take you through the journey, with a team of staff writers/editors etc waiting to convert your academic insights into something that is completely accessible to general audiences. On the course, we had the ‘pleasure’ of dissecting our hypothetical pitches. Now, as uncomfortable as these processes can be (I don’t take to them naturally either) it’s a great way to learn how to curate your work for different audiences and ultimately how to defend your ideas. Honestly, If you have an idea for a pitch (any media source) then do it, even if it’s a no, the feedback can be invaluable.

The Power of Narrative

The next aspect I’ve reflected on since the course is the idea of narrative itself. Now most of us spend our time writing lit reviews, bids or long-form writing pieces – If we are honest, how often do we sit and think about the narrative of what we do? A big takeaway here is the importance of this in any sort of mainstream piece, throughout the session we routinely discussed the idea of the story arc; the conflict, solution and resolution. This isn’t just within the purview of fiction writers, it’s an essential tool and one that we must utilise in order to reach larger audiences. I think as human beings we have a deep connection with many forms of narrative, exemplified with our rich oral histories, that predate our written languages. So, I would argue that formatting your article in such a way is not only more compelling, but it can make really difficult concepts easier to understand. A key point here is that stories can still be compelling, informative, attention-grabbing and indeed academically significant.

Some Top Tips…

Okay, I hear you ‘Yes, yes, this is all well and good Anton but how do we actually write one?’. Well obviously, I can’t write it for you (I’m not 100% sure I can write my own yet) but I nabbed a whole host of tricks and tips, I’ll include some of them below so try them out yourself.

  • The ‘Top Line Test’ – try summarising your article idea, the whole thing into one sentence (if you can’t it’s probably too broad).
  • Think about the style first, are you informing, analysing, persuading or explaining?
  • Reflect on your target audience first as opposed to trying to shoehorn it later (far less painful).
  • What is the story, and in many ways more importantly, why should we as the reader care? (Your research is important, but we don’t know that).
  • Be clear about the purpose of the pitch/article and why you (and not someone else) should be the person to write it.

Finally, I thought I would end with a sort of ‘what not to do’. Mostly because I’m starting to realise it’s my main learning style apparently (but that’s a whole separate blog). The course included some great tips when dealing with editors etc, which to be honest I had no idea about, but these social conventions can make all the difference if you don’t know them. This may seem obvious but don’t overwrite, editors are insanely busy and all the pitches we looked at were no more than 280 words (never send the whole article cold). You want to give the illusion at least that you have written it just for them. Language is another common pitfall here, the trainer expertly picked us up on our apparent everyday language in our pitches, “What do you mean, what’s unclear about a ‘post-structuralist performative lens’ (not to my knowledge a real term, but wouldn’t surprise me if it is)?” No jargon people, we love it, but it’s just a barrier to our audience and is destroying our potential to reach them.

A Final Thought

Now I hope you have found this blog useful, and leaving the pitfalls aside the whole experience was a really positive one. My main learning here is that the world of mainstream media publishing is not quite as scary as we might think it is – there is a whole host of media outlets that are interested in what you have to say. Now get out and start writing, because whatever your field or areas of expertise is, there is a story there that only you can tell…so I implore you, tell it!

Anton Roberts – Sociologist at Manchester Metropolitan University

Adam Nicolson’s ‘The Mighty Dead: Why Homer Matters’

Book Review

Listen to the episode here

This time we are exploring the surprisingly sociological book, The Mighty Dead: Why Homer Matters. As usual we cover a lot of ground, from poetry, writing style, oral history, to the urban and the rural, the origins of violence/gangs. There even some reflections around masculinity and intimacy in war.

About the Author:

You can order his book here:

‘You’re ALL Talk’ – why we are what we speak’ + Author Interview

Book Review

Listen to the episode here

Join me and my co host Saiqa as we explore the wonderful world of language and accents for this fascinating book review ‘Your All Talk: why we are what we speak’. We discuss class, identity, inequality, prejudice around accents, history of speech, and share plenty of our personal experiences on the subject.

In the second part of the episode I am also joined by Rob Drummond himself (author) to give us the low down on his book, the challenges of writing, and some great advice around how to write one too.

About the Author:

Rob Drummond is Professor of Sociolinguistics at Manchester Metropolitan University, where he researches and teaches about the relationship between how we speak and who we are. He recently completed a large project exploring the accents and dialects of Greater Manchester, touring the region in his Accent Van. He appears regularly on radio and TV talking about language-related issues and spent some time as ‘resident linguist’ on BBC Radio 3’s The Verb, as well as appearing on the BBC Breakfast sofa.

More info can be found here:

https://scribepublications.co.uk/books-authors/books/youare-all-talk-9781914484285

You can order his book here:

Podcast – ‘Fire in the Belly: On Being a Man’ by Sam Keen

Book Review

Listen to the episode here

In this thought provoking review I am joined by my comrade in arms Saiqa Butt, a performing poet and fiction writer. We delve into Sam Keen’s classic – a personal journey into masculinity, where he explores notions of male potency, strength, insecurity, personal development, violence and their relationship to women. There is so much here, we touched on war, class, sexual assault, folk lore/mythology, patriarchy, anthropology, and even a bit of psychoanalysis as I recall.

How To Survive (And Dare I Say It Flourish) On Your Research Journey With Prof Steve Miles

Listen to the episode here

Professor Steve Miles is a sociologist at Manchester Metropolitan University based in the Postgraduate Arts and Humanities Centre (PAHC). His area of expertise is in consumption and he is the Head of Faculty Research Degrees here at MMU. Steve completed his PhD in 1996 from the University of Huddersfield – his thesis is titled ‘You just wear what you want don’t yer’? An empirical examination of the relationship between youth consumption and the construction of identity.’ Join us as we discuss the challenges and opportunities that come with a PhD and a further career in academic research. We naturally touch on a variety of other topics such as social mobility, class, gender, race, discourse, identity and working cultures. It’s packed full of useful tips for any post grad or early career researcher.

Prison and Social Destruction

I have recently been conducting a fair bit of prison-based research, which has involved not only spending considerable time inside the prison walls but also spending a substantial amount of time speaking with many of the prisoners in there, and this has led me to reflect on the nature and importance of human relationships. Many of the men in there not only have families they love, but young children and newborn babies they will not see/meet for extended periods (if ever) – many choose to not see their loved ones for the shame it induces. The interesting aspect of incarceration is that we tend to think of it as individually punitive, but this is not how the human animal works. We are defined by the relationships we choose – for better or worse. Speaking with these men has got me thinking about the immeasurable secondary impacts of their imprisonment. The state has not only inflicted harm upon them, but the countless individuals they are connected to, and provide support for. How would we even go about putting a number on such a blight to our societal harmony? – With hundreds of lives impacted for the price of one individual (which we also pay for by the way).

Durkheim famously talked about the notion of anomie, which is the inherent risk within any community of a social breakdown of norms and values. This existential risk occurs when individuals experience a separation or ‘alienation’ to use the term of the time, from their perceived wider society. He wrote about it in the context of explaining suicide rates, although it doesn’t take a genius to see some comparisons. These men, upon release often feel a profound sense of separation and lack of purposefulness – their social networks all but obliterated, the world can often appear as a very alien place. I suspect in many respects this feeds back into the perpetual cycle of re-offending – denied the support of close meaningful relationships they fall back into more destructive criminal networks.

I can already hear the counter arguments ‘They have committed a crime, they deserve it, they should have thought about that before committing the offence’ etc etc. But I would argue this misses the point entirely, this isn’t about whether we should imprison people or not, this concerns societal re-integration, which we all agree should happen at some point (with the appropriate consideration of risk of course). Our community is the way we measure our values, how we define good and importantly morally ‘bad’, social norms. The reality is it is difficult for us to appreciate the level of social damage that occurs within the carceral space – to be denied healthy relationships, personal growth and connections that allow for the essential sharing of vulnerability without cost. We enjoy relative free reign in the relationships we seek to develop in our everyday lives. In the prison space, you can expect displays of emotion to be met with suspicion and/or violence, with your only other option being solitary confinement in the segregation part of the prison (considered a form of torture by the UN for a reason).

With so much focus on the various ‘skills’ programmes in the prison estate within criminology, it would be nice to have a renewed focus on the more human factors to imprisonment and how they can be mitigated against i.e. how to maintain a healthy social self within the person. As this same self is expected to spectacularly reintegrate into civilian life without issues.

Hatred and Homeless…

Even before I was a researcher I was always puzzled by the rather odd societal relationship we have with the homeless. In one respect they are sites of disgust, objects to pathologise and to degrade in some way. They are the focus for untold hate and victimisation, and not just from faceless organisations such as law enforcement, but also from members of the general public – many of them routinely suffer violence while sleeping rough on our streets. However, to any that knows of their plight, they often elicit great compassion within us. I’ve worked with armies of selfless individuals through in sorts of charities and organisations and I can confirm they think of nothing else but their welfare (and often at great personal cost to their own lives and their relationships). So what explains this odd state of affairs? Why do we both care for and penalise this population?

I think it is worth remembering what individuals experiencing homelessness represent to most people. In one sense they are a living reminder of the structural inequalities present in our day-to-day life, and also a living warning of what could be if you are not content with the hand you have been dealt. And not to get too philosophical here but rough sleepers represent something much deeper, that goes beyond just the individual. If we are honest with ourselves, and take care not to ignore the tremendous trauma they endure, to many they embody a radical form of personal freedom. Those experiencing street sleeping (the only form of homelessness the public see) are seen to be ‘free’ of many of the trapping of modern capitalist life. They are assumed to:

  • Not work (many do, both legally and illegally)
  • Have no physical abode, or pay bills etc (may have a property that is unsafe to occupy e.g. threat of violence)
  • Their time is their own and they are free to come and go where they please (service times and facilities usually heavily conditional and restricted)
  • To just be ‘enjoying’ themselves, on various substances (not all homeless folk are substance users are those that are, are using them as a form of coping).

I would argue that this almost romantic (and incorrect view) of homelessness creates a form of jealousy, that can fuel resentment in the general population that can underwrite much of the rage and disgust rough sleepers experience. If you thought about your own life, I mean really thought about it, how free do you feel in it? How much control do you possess? In reality, we have jobs we often hate and are forced to pay for things we don’t need. Is it that hard to imagine that many would envy the (illusion) of that freedom and lack of responsibility? The anger stems from the perceived powerlessness that many feel in their lives, it must go somewhere. Those marginalised, invisible people experiencing homelessness are the perfect target, an apparently ‘morally corrupt’ and socially excluded group. The uncomfortable truth here is they show us something about ourselves that is quite profound, that perhaps we ‘successful, happy and well functioning’ members of society are actually deeply unhappy with the status quo – that there is a quiet desperation to modern times; some existential missing piece, a void in the lives of our passive consumption.

The Anatomy of Violence

Please enjoy my documentary film, in collaboration with NorthRavenFilm exploring the role of violence in our culture. I talk with a range of academic experts in this one and from a whole host of separate disciplines. Haven’t you ever wondered if there was more to violence than a simple loss of control? Why do people perpetrate acts of violence, and which types of aggression and violence do we find acceptable or unacceptable in our society? We hear from experts in knife crime, video games, drill and heavy metal music and as well as experts by lived experience such as those involved in the criminal justice system. Anyone wishing to understand the underlying mechanisms and reasons for such acts should find this film really useful.

The Rage of Our Times

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about some of the unique contradictions of our time, such as the simultaneous proximity and distance that technology affords us – but mostly what interests me most is anger, offence, and experienced slights. Simple (mostly online) media narratives are propelled at us at every avenue, instructing us on the latest travesty or global emergency we should be concerned about. They inform us of the next heinous ‘out group’ we should distance ourselves from, to fear, and in some cases silence with varying degrees of force. As a sociologist in the field of gender research, I’m no stranger to polarising discourses, it’s become a sad feature of our time, but I’ve introspected a lot as to what are the likely culprits of these offence wars along with some of their negative consequences. The question that often keeps me up at night is why speaking with our fellow human beings has become so difficult. Conflict is not new to the species; interpersonal violence is an unfortunate staple of our past and present. What I am writing about here though is offence, the subjective experience of being wronged by another party. They are caused by the violations of our often imperceivable sacred values, or the social norms of a group.

As anyone reading this will know our current reality is a around the clock offence meter, with various groups and factions constantly competing for some form of victim status and the demonisation of their respective opponents. These debates vary and are many, examples include; trans rights, abortion rights, religious freedoms, freedom of speech, political affiliations, racial equality etc. So why can’t we rationally talk about any of these issues anymore? I think it’s best to start with the nature of discourse – typically, positive discourse requires that parties face one another on equal terms and speak their mind honestly and in good faith. Their viewpoints are explained and no matter how alien to the others they may be, their arguments are suddenly etched with nuance and with the biographical experiences which informed/created their perspectives. As you communicate you begin to mirror one another, you seek common ground, mutual ways of understanding, and if you’re lucky gain a newfound understanding of a world, alien to your own. With a background in rhetoric/philosophy, I learned long ago that the greatest asset you can bring to the table in any discussion is an attitude of non-judgement and a genuine curiosity (even if their views may be morally offensive to me personally).

The acclaimed primatologist Frans de Waal calls us the ‘bi-polar ape’ for our inherently insane capacity for both violence and cooperation. I think this goes some way to explain the unique problems of modernity. Humans are hard-wired for cooperation; we are the most social of all the apes – interacting with groups infinitely larger than any of our other primate brethren and the signs of this are everywhere if you look hard enough. As author Leo Keohane remarks in his book The Power of Strangers, even the white pigment of our eyes is an evolved social feature, a way of communicating something of interest to another human being. I would argue that as a result of our modern civilisation, the way in which we communicate has fundamentally shifted, and not for the better. On an individual basis we are having less social interaction than ever – reflected in the soaring rates of loneliness in the young and old alike. Naturally, when negative thoughts and feelings are left to their own devices, absent of reassurance, social capital, support, or comparison from the community, views can rapidly err on the side of more extreme and negative thinking.

Instead, we communicate in increasingly narrow and superficial ways, yes with more people, but that human recognition is lost under a veil of internet anonymity. Social media outlets distort our words to create the illusion of a constant civil war when in truth it’s merely the result of a pesky algorithm that prioritises offence over other more ‘boring’ but rational and reasonable voices, ensuring a constant supply of offended, marginal and extreme voices. These features are then combined with the inherent limitations of the medium itself. We are forced to compress our perspectives, experiences (and often trauma), and world views, into a handful of soundbites or letter characters in order for our information to be consumed/commodified into click content for the rage mill. What could be more unpleasant than finding out that you are the consumer product here? In my view, these two factors combine to create a perfect storm of human misunderstanding.

But…let’s not close on a negative, there is a bright side here. For one thing, you can choose how you engage with individuals with views different to your own. Always choose face-to-face contact if possible, or at least engage with social media with an understanding of its limitations and how it uses you as content. The main positive takeaway from this though is that the world is not actually as divided or polarised as you may think, in reality, our differences are small, our similarities great, and most of those differences can be smoothed over with a brew.

In closing, go outside, talk to someone!