Author: graham

Categories
Miscellaneous MY TEACHING JOURNEY PURE BLOG

In praise of scholarship

Scholarship rarely looks dramatic. It unfolds in archives, laboratories, field sites, and long nights of analysis. It demands patience, doubt, and the courage to follow evidence even when it leads into conflict with custom, profit, or political comfort. The scholar’s tools are not force or spectacle, but measurement, reason, and sustained attention. Yet this quiet labour has extended life expectancy, reduced hunger, made cities safer, and exposed harms once treated as normal. Civilisation rests less on moments of conquest than on accumulated understanding, tested and shared across generations.

Public culture often treats heroism as proof of patriotism, as though love of country must show itself through a uniform, a flag, or battlefield sacrifices. That view is easy to get behind, but it narrows what service can mean. Many of the people on the list that follows acted from loyalty to human life rather than loyalty to a party or nation. They faced ridicule, blocked careers, funding loss, legal threats, and public attack. Some damaged their health. Some died young. Yet their work reduced famine, disease, industrial disaster, and environmental harm across borders, for humanity – not just for one country. Their research did not defend a single territory. It defended children from infection, workers from poison, cities from collapse, and future generations from preventable risk.

If patriotism means wanting one’s own country to flourish, then clean air, safe medicine, reliable infrastructure, and honest science serve that aim better than flags and slogans. Better still, they benefit all, not simply those who happen to have the same passport.

Mature patriotism honours those who protect life, even when they challenge power at home.

Scholars and researchers – achievement, personal cost, and long-term social impact (sorted by family name)
Name Date of birth Date of death Description of achievement Description of personal price paid Long-term social impact
Alice Ball 24 July 1892 31 December 1916 Created first effective leprosy therapy. Early death and stolen credit. Standard treatment for decades, restoring thousands of lives.
Rachel Carson 27 May 1907 14 April 1964 Revealed pesticide damage to health and ecosystems. Smear campaigns and public attacks while terminally ill. Launched environmental regulation and modern conservation movements.
Ronald Fisher 17 February 1890 29 July 1962 At Rothamsted, developed core principles of experimental design (randomisation, replication, blocking) and analysis of variance for field trials. Faced sustained professional conflict and reputational damage linked to bitter methodological disputes and his later public advocacy of eugenics. His design framework underpins modern randomised trials and reliable inference across medicine, psychology, agriculture, and industry.
Rosalind Franklin 25 July 1920 16 April 1958 Produced crucial DNA X-ray evidence. Marginalised and denied credit; likely harmed by radiation exposure. Enabled modern genetics, cancer research, and biotechnology worldwide.
Joseph Goldberger 16 July 1874 17 January 1929 Proved pellagra came from malnutrition. Political hostility and blocked reforms. Nutritional policy prevented mass poverty-related deaths.
Stephen Hawking 8 January 1942 14 March 2018 Advanced black hole physics and cosmology, reshaping modern theoretical physics. Lived most of his adult life with motor neurone disease and severe physical disability. Expanded public understanding of cosmology and strengthened global science education and inspiration.
Alice Hamilton 27 February 1869 22 September 1970 Exposed workplace poisoning hazards. Industry harassment and academic exclusion. Modern occupational health laws stem from her work.
James Hansen 26 March 1941 Living Issued early public warnings on global warming. Political pressure and public attacks. Core scientific basis for climate policy and emissions law.
Dorothy Hodgkin 12 May 1910 29 July 1994 Solved the structures of insulin, penicillin, and vitamin B12 using X-ray crystallography. Worked through severe rheumatoid arthritis and limited institutional support. Enabled modern drug design and large-scale insulin production, saving many lives.
Jane Jacobs 4 May 1916 25 April 2006 Human-centred city design theory. Harassment and forced relocation. Safer, walkable urban planning adopted globally.
Katalin Karikó 17 January 1955 Living Developed mRNA technology. Demotion and long-term funding rejection. Enabled rapid Covid-19 vaccines and future cancer treatments.
Frances Kelsey 24 July 1914 7 August 2015 Blocked thalidomide approval in the US. Corporate pressure and stalled career. Strengthened global drug testing standards protecting future generations.
Trevor Kletz 28 October 1922 28 October 2013 Developed industrial hazard prevention systems. Sidelined by industry leaders. Prevented countless chemical and refinery disasters.
Elizabeth Kübler-Ross 8 July 1926 24 August 2004 Transformed end-of-life care by studying how people experience dying and grief. Ridiculed by medical institutions and pushed out of academic posts. Humanised hospice care and reshaped psychological support for the dying worldwide.
Syukuro Manabe 21 September 1931 Living Built early accurate climate models. Long periods of neglect and limited funding. Modern climate prediction and risk planning rest on this work.
Barry Marshall 30 September 1951 Living Proved ulcers were caused by bacteria. Career obstruction and ridicule. Transformed treatment of ulcers and gastric cancer prevention.
Elinor Ostrom 7 August 1933 12 June 2012 Proved communities can manage shared resources sustainably. Long academic rejection. Influenced environmental policy and conservation worldwide.
Charles Perrow 9 February 1925 29 March 2019 Showed disasters arise from system design. Corporate backlash and marginalisation. Shaped industrial and aviation safety regulation worldwide.
Amartya Sen 3 November 1933 Living Showed famines stem from inequality and policy failure. Political hostility and ideological resistance. Reformed food security and welfare policy across nations.
Ignaz Semmelweis 1 July 1818 13 August 1865 Proved handwashing prevented childbed fever. Ridiculed, institutionalised, died in neglect. Infection control underpins modern medicine globally.
Alan Turing 23 June 1912 7 June 1954 Helped break German wartime codes and laid foundations of computer science. Prosecuted for homosexuality, chemically castrated, died by suicide. Accelerated Allied victory and founded modern computing and artificial intelligence.
“`
Categories
MY TEACHING JOURNEY PURE BLOG

You know…

Many of us lean on the phrase “you know” when we present, often without any awareness that we are doing so. It slips into our speech at the end of a clause or just before we launch the next idea. We do not usually mean it as a question. We use it as a bridge while we gather our thoughts. Yet what feels natural and helpful to us can feel distracting to those who listen. Over time, repeated use erodes the speaker’s clarity, weaken their authority, and taxes the audience’s attention.

To be fair, “You know” sits within a wider family of discourse markers such as “um” and “er”. When we speak without a script, we plan ideas while producing language, monitoring tone, and reading social cues. This process places high demand on our working memory. Under that load, our brains insert short, low-cost phrases to hold the floor while we prepare what comes next (Clark & Fox Tree, 2002). In everyday conversation this rarely causes difficulty. Casual talk tolerates repair, overlap, and verbal padding because connection matters as much as precision.

Presentations operate under different expectations. When we stand in front of a group, we signal that we will offer structured thought. Our listeners expect deliberate phrasing and coherent flow. Each time we say “you know”, we interrupt that flow. We signal shared understanding but add no new information. Meaning stalls for a moment, then resumes. One instance passes unnoticed. Repetition accumulates. What began as a thinking aid becomes a strain on attention.

Research on cognitive fluency helps explain why this irritates. When ideas feel easy to process, we judge them as clearer and more credible. When processing feels effortful, we attribute that difficulty to the speaker rather than to the situation (Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009). We rarely think, “This talk contains minor disfluencies.” Instead, we feel that the speaker lacks preparation or confidence. Our judgement forms quickly and without conscious intent.

We may also react to the social signal embedded in the phrase. “You know” assumes shared knowledge. Used sparingly, it can create warmth. Used repeatedly, it shifts responsibility onto the listener, as if understanding already exists and agreement should follow. Linguistic work on discourse markers suggests that repeated bids for assumed common ground can produce subtle resistance, especially in formal settings where clarity matters (Schiffrin, 1987).

There is another cost. Pauses serve us well as listeners. They allow us to group ideas, reflect, and integrate meaning. When we replace silence with fillers, we remove those moments of cognitive rest. Instead of a clean boundary between thoughts, we offer noise. Over time, our audience grows tired.

None of this implies low intelligence or poor preparation. Evidence shows that disfluency links more strongly to real-time cognitive demand than to ability (Bortfeld et al., 2001). Even experienced speakers increase filler use when material grows complex or when social pressure rises. The habit reflects the brain at work.

The issue lies in mismatch. The patterns that support us in conversation do not always serve us in presentation.

How to reduce your… You knows

If we wish to address this in ourselves or in others, we should frame it around care for our audience rather than fault in the speaker. Excessive “you know” is not morally wrong. It is cognitively costly. It asks our listeners to work harder than necessary. Clear delivery shows respect for their time and attention.

Awareness forms the first step. Most of us underestimate how often we repeat a filler. When we record ourselves and count its frequency over two minutes, the pattern becomes visible. Hearing our own speech can unsettle us, yet it provides concrete feedback that memory cannot supply.

The second step involves substitution rather than suppression. If we try to ban the phrase while speaking, we increase our anxiety and often worsen our fluency. Our brain needs an alternative behaviour. A short pause works best. A breath before the next clause may feel long to us, yet it sounds measured to others. With practice, silence replaces the filler.

The third step concerns structure. We tend to insert fillers where our thinking feels heavy. If we organise our material into clear segments with deliberate sentence endings, we reduce planning load in the moment. Our speech becomes steadier because our ideas already sit in order.

Remember that the load on our brain increases when it is emotional. We often use “you know” most when discussing material that matters to us. Emotion and complexity increase cognitive demand. The habit may signal engagement rather than carelessness. Our aim is not to strip our speech of warmth, but to align natural thinking with audience comfort.

Effective communication depends not only on what we say, but on how easily others can absorb it. Small verbal habits shape large social judgements. Fluency breeds trust. Disruption breeds doubt.

Silence, in this context, is not a failure. It is structure. When we allow our ideas space, we signal thought rather than uncertainty. Where repetition clutters meaning, a pause restores clarity.

When we replace fillers with measured silence and clear phrasing, our authority often rises without any change in content. Our words feel chosen rather than rushed. Our presence feels steady rather than strained.

The paradox remains that what helps us think can hinder others from understanding. The craft of presentation lies in bridging that gap with awareness, care, and practice.

References

Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564

Bortfeld, H., Leon, S. D., Bloom, J. E., Schober, M. F., & Brennan, S. E. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44(2), 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309010440020101

Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84(1), 73–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521339225