Res-Sisters 2015

From November last year until about three weeks ago I had the absolute pleasure of writing a collaborative article with a group of early career female and feminist academics. We all write from relatively different disciplines ranging from education and sociology to my cultural studies end of the spectrum, but because we are all youth researchers, our paths have managed to cross.

The chapter that we have written has been for an edited collection about being a feminist academic in contemporary Higher Education (Feminist Beginnings*), and so we all wanted to respond to talk about our experiences of the neoliberal academy. We specifically decided to write collaboratively, as a means of writing an article that also provided a space for consciousness raising. As a means of rejecting the rampant individualism of the neoliberal academy we were committed to ensuring that there was no one lead author, and this is something that we are particularly proud of. We all care deeply about our roles within Higher Education and we also care passionately about the wellbeing of one another, both within the Res-Sister collective and our colleagues within the field; encouraging conversations that build solidarity and support. With this in mind we encourage all Res-Sisters to share our experiences far and wide. So, when asked to produce a Pecha Kucha as part of my teacher training I could think of no better topic to present on. It prompted passionate discussion amongst the academics in the room, ranging from Pharmacy and Environmental Science through to Economics and History. Despite our differing intellectual backgrounds we all felt disillusionment with the neoliberal academy and the demands it places upon us (well, all bar the economist anyway!). It is so important that we talk about these things, and that we render problematic the common-sense of the neoliberal academy.

As part of this sharing, here is the Pecha Kucha that I presented last week. It cuts off at the end (you lose the last 20 seconds), so if you are desperate to know what I say, you can listen to it here. We hope that you appreciate what we have to say:

*a link will appear when its available to purchase/reserve from your local library.

Kindness and Peer Review.

I’m never sure if I should write about this sort of thing, because I often fear that in doing so I’ll reveal myself as either a) the shabby and fraudulent academic writer that I am, or b) an academic that can’t handle the heat of the job. But I want to write about it because if I don’t then it won’t be said and we can’t actually get around to making any changes. Nadine Muller’s academic consciousness raising has taught me that much of the feeling of inadequacy that academics experience isn’t something that is, nor should be, considered ‘normal’ and it seems to serve little purpose other than to make people feel crap (read: not actually progressing the field). I know that I am definitely not alone in dealing with mental health problems that have either been caused by, or at least exacerbated by being in academia.

So, I want to spend a moment thinking about the peer review process, and the impact that it has on us. Peer review is an essential part of the academic process. It ensures that the work that we produce is up to the necessary standards, that we are progressing knowledge with work that is of the highest quality.

One criticism that has come up in conversation recently is the lack of peer review. We write and write and write for publication and sometimes when we receive feedback (good or negative) it is only a couple of lines long. But today I’m not discussing that type of feedback, I talking about the feedback that is substantive, but its substantive and mean.

Now, I should note that peer reviewers work for free, we take time out of our already busy workloads to review work, and that doesn’t always lead to the best working conditions for reviewers. But I’ve noticed that there’s a common issue where some reviewers are being unnecessarily unkind in their reviews. This is when the review reads more as ‘cutting’ than it does constructive. I always try to be constructive, even when pointing out the flaws in the work, but that doesn’t seem to be common practice (I know a number of colleagues at various levels who have all received unnecessarily mean reviews from a particular journal). The problem seems to be that reviewers seem happy with taking the author down, along with the work. This is something that can be particularly damaging to authors that are early in their career, attempting to carve out a name for themselves.

Take this comment from a recent review I received as an example:

Screen shot 2014-11-08 at 13.53.33

Okay, so maybe I used the phrase too often (I am reminded this later on by the reviewer):

Screen shot 2014-11-08 at 14.06.15

Okay, okay, I get it. But there are ways to say it. Now that I have some distance from the review I can almost find it comical (by this point in reading the review for the first time I’d actually started crying), but I just wonder how hard it would have been for the reviewer to stop for a second and wonder if they would like to read what they were writing if it was their work under review. Such catty remarks serve not to progress the work to where it needs to be, but to push the author away from it altogether. Its hard to go back and try and take constructive comments from a review that makes you feel bad about yourself when you read it.

This following piece of writing from Bev Skeggs is one that resonates with me. I have it pinned up on my office wall as a reminder that even some of the most sophisticated thinkers struggle with their identity in academia:


I talk about my class a lot. I have spent a lot of time in the university context feeling that this is not a space for me. I don’t know the language, I don’t know how to use the space, I don’t know how to fit in. I’ve struggled to write academically throughout my career, what grammar goes where and how to use longer words. To use entirely inaccessible language here, my habitus is faulty. And sometimes it feels that the peer review process only seeks to reaffirm that to me. So, when I see:

Screen shot 2014-11-08 at 13.30.20

I read: ‘You don’t belong here. You are not good enough‘.

But then I reflect on how I have lots of friends and colleagues from more affluent backgrounds who have the same anxieties as me, so I’m not even sure its a class issue. I think instead its actually a “don’t be so fucking mean” issue.

And maybe the piece of work wasn’t quite right, it probably wasn’t ready for publication in that state. That’s fine, I can live with that. Most pieces of work need some or maybe even a lot of attention before they’re ready. And sometimes, a piece of work could have a fundamental flaw at some level and it won’t ever be viable for publication. But there are ways of saying it.

So, what I want to encourage us to all do is to realise that firstly, we’re not alone in this, and secondly, it’s not on. We can all do a little bit in our own reviews of other people’s work, asking ourselves if we would be happy to receive the comments we’re giving. We seem to be stuck in some nasty cycle where we get a mean review and assume that’s just how its done, repeating the cycle. For lots of reasons academia has ended up in this really shitty place where people find themselves getting ground down in all avenues of their work. Peer review could be an easy place to enact some changes.

And then again, I still feel that sharing this is a risk. Its a risk because I do run the risk of revealing myself as a poor academic. But I’m not a poor academic, and I have to have faith in that, we all do. It doesn’t feel right to say “I’m well regarded by my peers” because we’re constantly taught to second-guess ourselves. But you know what? I think I am well regarded by my peers. I have produced, and published, good academic work. I want to fucking own those statements.

We’re constantly taught that what we’re doing isn’t good enough, we’re not working hard enough, stress isn’t stress until you’re in hospital. But we have to change that. We have to say that “I want to work in a supportive, constructive and kind environment, an environment where we’re not in competition with one another, but where we want to see our colleagues strive and achieve for the good of both them, and for the progression of knowledge”, and we have to fight for achieving that environment.


Why Taste Matters: My research and the Celebrity Studies Conference

On Saturday I gave the first conference paper I have given in a long time. Importantly, this was the first conference paper I’d given since I passed my viva. It’s incredible what a difference a passed viva makes, I knew exactly what I wanted to say and why (and somewhat pathetically, I knew that the ‘experts’ in the field had okayed it, which gave me an additional kind of armour).The paper that I gave was part of a pre-defined panel at the Celebrity Studies conference, a conference full of inspiring, articulate and supportive academics. The panel that I was part of was put together by the CelebYouth team, a team working on a project that has strong parallels in to my own, and so a team that I have been in contact with for some time. We were (virtually) joined by Kortney Sherbine whose work considers young people’s engagement with Justin Bieber in the US. As a panel, one of the things we had agreed we wanted to emphasise in all of our papers was the importance of empirical research in the study of celebrity.

My intervention has always been that we should take seriously the role of taste within everyday life. I argue that what we say we like or dislike (when taste becomes public) can say interesting things about how we see ourselves and our culture more broadly.

I think it says something that some people are surprised, and that sometimes I even have to defend liking The Kardashians.

I think it says something that many people don’t often understand my support for Jorge Lorenzo. And I think it says something that I spent much of my teenage metal-head years hiding my past as a Take That fanatic (and heaven forbid people should know that I went to see them at Earls Court). But then again, after the return of Robbie and the tax fraud of Gary, I’d rather people not know that history of mine at the moment either…


The basis of the argument in my thesis is that taste matters, and this is what was at the heart of the paper I gave at the Celebrity Studies conference. I argued through my findings, which found that boys’ tastes are highly regulated on the grounds of (re)producing acceptable forms of masculinity and that girls taste were centred around ideas of ‘girls can like more because girls have less to lose’, that the regulation of taste happens in contemporary youth cultures.And thus it follows that I believe this matters.

It matters because it limits who and what young people can be, and who and what they can grow into. Boys, who were very fearful of appearing gay, were expected to engage with celebrities that allowed them to reproduce hegemonic masculinity (which is to say to be masculine in a way that fits with how we imagine men ‘should’ behave). Through this then the sort of celebrities they were expected to like often held some form of technical skill, so celebrities such as footballers and musicians were commonly cited. Equally, ‘conventionally’ sexually attractive women that would allow boys to perform ‘being straight’ were also seen as important. When it came to the celebrities that girls liked, it was much more varied. Part of this was because the young people described engagement with celebrity culture as quite a feminine thing, particularly in terms of the bitching and scrutiny that was seen to be a large aspect of talking about celebrities. The main workings of my argument, along with some quotes from participants, the methods I used and the theories I referred to, can be seen in this Prezi (its the one I used in my presentation):

There’s a lot of really good textual analysis work going on how there in the field of celebrity studies. This work is important. But so too is the empirical work that’s going on. By talking to young people and hearing what they had to say in focus groups, I have learned that the ways in which young people talk about celebrity is regulated by ideas of gender appropriateness. There are ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ tastes to have about celebrities for young people. Of course its complicated, context is really important, so we can’t overly generalise. Nevertheless, the only reason I know any of this, the only reason I can firmly say ‘appropriate responses to celebrity plays a significant role in how gender is reproduced during youth’ is because I went out there and engaged with young people. I spoke to them and they spoke to me.

It was eluded by theorists such as Graeme Turner that it’s really hard to be able to say things empirically, to which I would respond that ontologically/epistemologically its hard to say things, to know things, full stop. But just because its tricky it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give it a go.