Tag Archives: media

Lessons from Lockdown


Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, “A day without learning is a day wasted” so today I have tried to draw some lessons from the strange circumstances that we now find ourselves in. As I look to pass my 100th day in lockdown and working from home, there are five strong messages that have become apparent to me.

Continuity of work

Although my work has a different dynamic these days, it has continued relatively smoothly in my new office environment at home. Much of my work was already in the online environment, with email communications, videoconference meetings, and discussing web-based resources with distance-learners. In this new situation, I am aware that I have been luckier than many others, but I am also aware that lots of my regular work colleagues are in a similar position to me. We have swapped the financial and time costs of commuting to work with the extra costs and time spent at home. We may miss interaction in the same physical space, but there have been some amazing and innovative ‘workarounds’ that have brought some groups closer together, extended networks, and enabled a ‘new normal’ form of work to continue with scarcely a blip.

The global shift to online

After a faltering start, it has been impressive how many individuals, businesses, organisations, and services have quite comfortably shifted their activities into the online environment. In addition to my work with the university, I have been impressed by my recent personal experiences in interacting with the HNS, with Third Sector voluntary organisations, and with retail shops and outlets that previously did very little, if anything, using the online environment. Even the government is having its fling with business-as-usual-at-a-distance. Some would no doubt never have made such a move unless they had been forced into it, but many have discovered that there are real benefits to working online, including greater geographical inclusion, cost-saving in travel requirements, asynchronous viewing of missed meetings, and so on. How many of these newly realised benefits will continue to be pursued after lockdown ends and some sort of pre-COVID19 reality returns remains to be seen?

A fortunate space

In the offline world, there are also revelations. A rural environment, in particular, the Isle of Lewis, (and even my specific village) has long been my preferred bastion of retreat. The necessary restrictions of social distancing and locked-down premises, has brought into sharp focus the many benefits of living in a beautiful, safe, and spacious personal location. If I have to withdraw temporarily from the world and ‘self-isolate’, I cannot think of anywhere that I would prefer than precisely where I am now. I realise, of course, that a great many people do not have that option, and I wonder to what extent this realisation, in combination with the previous point on shifting possibilities for distance-working, will mean that we might see a renaissance in thinking about rural areas as ‘the place to be’ once things eventually begin to settle down. Certainly, the flight of some urbanites to the safety of their rural homes might be a sign of things to come. The rural idyll is dead, long live the rural idyll.

The intensity of connectivity

Nevertheless, despite all of the benefits of being able to buy online, work online, communicate online, and more or less continue life with some veneer of normality (whatever that was) there are gains and losses in the current iteration of normality. Although I am accustomed, indeed habituated, to email communications and videoconference discussions, the present emphasis on these options and these options only, can take its toll. I am fortunate to have a distinct study-place, but its proximity to the bedroom, kitchen, garden, and the croft outside, means that I need to be more disciplined and more regulated in my distinction between work and play. This is difficult for a person whose job is interesting and whose idea of fun is what they are already paid to do for a living. As the lockdown continues, I see growing frustration and (say it gently, but say it) mental health issues in some of my colleagues. Across a table, there is some physical distancing, but when the computer screen is barely 30cm from you, the person on the video-link ranting on their personal soapbox is literally in your face. The interconnectivity of the internet, despite it now becoming recognised as a great leveler and all-encompassing source of information (not all good), means that whenever I end a meeting, somebody, somewhere else, knows that I am ‘free’ and seeks to make contact. A strict self-policing of my ‘availability’ needs to be implemented!

The darker side of social media

Despite being an enthusiastic, (no, that’s not correct) an atavistic user of succinct social messaging (i.e. Twitter) I have recently experienced, much to my surprise, (after 40 years of online activity) some of the unsavory aspects of ubiquitous online accessibility. My simple response to an incorrect post led (with frightening alacrity) to a spate of online messages pointing out the error of my ways. It didn’t matter that the (perhaps, positively intentioned) people posting those messages know nothing about me, or that they obviously had only read part of the (very short) post. Undoubtedly there were some naïve comments and some genuine misunderstandings that would normally have been speedily resolved, but there were also some pretty nasty Trolls. The frustration of not being able to set the record straight, the disinclination to throw oil on the fire by responding, and an almost physical revulsion to some of the posts, was a strange combination. I can truly empathise with people who have been the subject of online abuse, false accusations, and spiteful comments. Subsequently, a subject expert (unknown to me) wrote a post to substantiate my original point, but the damage had been done. Now reaching for my mobile phone has a hesitancy that was not present previously when I went to check-up on comments from my friends and colleagues. Do I block these Trolls? No, for the present I simply ignore them, for I am very comfortable in my own skin and among those who actually know me. It has, however, presented a distasteful glimpse of the future online that is every bit as unacceptable as racism, misogyny, civic violence, sectarian bigotry, and the fascist intolerance of political diversity.

Welcome to the new normality.

Polishing the finished product


At the end of the viva there are various mixed emotions swirling around, for both the former student and the former supervisor. Relief that it is ‘all over’, happiness or displeasure with the final outcome, and, almost inevitably, speculation of what happens next. All of these reactions need to be recognised and addressed before the situation can move on. I don’t have the statistics to hand, but anecdotally, by the time the student actually progresses to making a submission of the final draft of the dissertation, the entire text should have been checked and re-checked by both student and supervisor, so outright failure is comparatively rare. The act of submission triggers an independent evaluation of the entire work, and probably without exception there will be several errors, gaps, and/or ambiguities revealed. It uncommon for a student to pass with absolutely no corrections (though it does happen!), so the examiners will usually make several observations, recommendations, and conditions before the award of the degree is confirmed. The observations set a backdrop to the report and might cite examples of how well the student performed, such as in the write-up of key aspects of the dissertation, or in the cut-and-thrust of the viva interview. The recommendations are usually optional improvements, such as suggestions to make the narrative a bit clearer, or encouragement to re-work a couple of key sections for subsequent journal publications. The critical commentary, however, is the list of conditions mentioned, for these need to be completed satisfactorily before the award of a pass is confirmed by the university.

There are three broad types of conditional statements; firstly, what everyone hopes for, is the award of a pass ‘with minor modifications’. This usually means relatively light corrections, such as correcting spelling and grammar, perhaps missing or badly cited references, and minor formatting such as captions to diagrams or ‘widows and orphans’ in the text. I would say that the bulk of successful PhD vivas end up in this category. Secondly, there could be a condition of ‘pass with major modifications’. This is not necessarily as serious as it might sound at first, for major adjustments might mean the reorganisation of sections of the dissertation, or the removal, addition, or extension of text that has already been presented. In some cases, the student has gone off at a tangent to the main topic, in other submissions there are important gaps, such as the omission to reference some up-to-date or key academic works. These conditions need to be addressed adequately in order to lift the final dissertation to the level required for the award of a PhD. The third category, which no-one ever really wants (including the examiners) is the requirement to ‘resubmit the dissertation’. In reality this means that there is evidence of the student having completed a reasonable body of research, but that this is offset by a range of serious omissions and/or lack of attention to detail which cannot simply be “tweaked” into an acceptable format.

The good output of any viva is that the candidate for the PhD will be told exactly what they need to do next in order to bring the dissertation up to the mark. Sometimes a full list of typographical errors will be supplied by the examiners, while on other occasions the student will simply be told to ‘check all spelling and references’. These conditions normally come with a recommended time-frame; frequently 3-6 months for ‘minor’ amendments and 6-12 months for ‘major’ changes, although in fact they rarely take that long. Minor changes are usually checked and approved by the Internal Examiner, while major changes will normally be sent to both examiners for approval. With the final award, the relationship between the supervisor and student alters subtly to become an association of professional colleagues, and that is a whole new experience.

Reviewing and revising


One of the strange but common occurrences in producing large pieces of writing is that the writer frequently becomes so close to the text that small (and even some large) errors get completely unnoticed. Supervisors have different ways of dealing with this. Normally I give a detailed commentary chapter by chapter, and then quickly read a revised version, but do not revisit that unless a later chapter forces some sort of re-think. It is usually emphasised from the very start of a PhD that the research project should belong to the student, not to their supervisors, and as the final draft of the dissertation approaches completion, this is a crucial time for the student to assert their ownership. In defending the thesis at a viva, it is the student who will be held responsible for any errors and misspellings, but the supervisors can effectively support this process by timely guidance.

Firstly, in addition to re-reading every chapter as it is drafted, I encourage students to review and revise the entire dissertation just before they start to write the final chapter that brings everything together. In this way writers can check for any small typos and at the same time refresh their memory about what they have written earlier. (It can be a relatively long time between the start and the end of the writing process, and memory can play tricks!) Next, it is usually a good idea to get an extra person (apart from the writer and the supervisor) to read through a document (in stages) to give some feedback. Although it helps to have someone who is knowledgeable about the subject material, the main thing is to have someone that can be trusted to tell you the hard truth. A friend or partner can be a great source of guidance to clarify writing (“what exactly do you mean by this sentence?”). Thirdly, it is a good idea to re-read the dissertation (again!) after you think that it is finished – perhaps not every single page, but certainly to dip into sections at random and check that the detail still makes sense. Do not skim over the small things such as tables or the caption of diagrams, these are just as likely to contain errors as any other paragraph.

It seems superfluous to say, but as each section or chapter is backed up for security, it is important that each saved copy has a date and/or version control number on every page. With multiple back-ups and multiple versions of revised copies, it can be very easy to create confusion. Ultimately, however, there comes a time to stop tinkering or tweaking the text and let it stand on its own merit. In some universities, the submission of the dissertation requires to be countersigned by the supervisor to agree that it is now in a fit state to be sent to an External Examiner for evaluation, but in other institutions the supervisors are simply informed. Either way, the student is responsible for the final contents and its appearance, and the supervisor is responsible for helping the student to produce the best submission under the prevailing circumstances.

Establishing the storyline


One of the first things that both the supervisors and the research students need to remember is that although the dissertation is the justification of an academic thesis, it also needs to tell a good and convincing story. There is little point in making a wonderful discovery if you cannot properly communicate with other people to tell them about it. Research is about discovering something unknown, and like any good mystery story, there needs to be an introduction to set the scene for your readers, (the literature review) there needs to be a storyline to develop the research agenda (starting with the methodology) there need to be clues discovered as the story develops (the results chapter(s)) and there needs to be a moment of final revelation of the object of your search (the analysis and conclusions).

The delivery of this story requires a certain writing style – it needs to follow the academic conventions of the subject discipline, it is not a novel – but that should not mean that the ‘story’ that the researcher wants to tell should not be easy to read. There are some simple tips, such as to first lay-out using numbered sub-headings, the main headlines in the ‘story’. The separate sections can then be written under these headings and linked together to form the chapters. A good idea is to begin by drafting the contents page of the dissertation, listing the chapter headings (1. Literature Review, 2. Methodology… etc.) and then entering the various headings of likely sub-sections. In addition to helping to establish a coherent storyline (which can be amended as the writing progresses) this enables the dissertation to be written in a manner which is not necessarily linear (sub-sections can be skipped and returned to a later date) and built up piece-by-piece while still keeping within the framework of the story. It is also a good tool for discussions between the research student and the supervisor about stage-by-stage progress (I have used this with red (not-done) green (completed) and amber (working on it) highlights, to help students prioritise what bits of writing need to be tackled next).

The bottom line is that the research student needs to craft a good story to introduce, explain, and discuss their research project, and if this is easy to read, then it will be easier for readers to follow and perhaps build-upon in subsequent activities. This includes correct spelling, good grammar, and simple tactics such as to avoid l-o-n-g and cumbersome sentences (I had once student who wrote a sentence containing the word ‘and’ seven times! This really was three separate sentences and would have been far easier to understand if it had been written in a simpler style.) Another avoidable error is to include sentences which give ambiguous comments. If there is a way in which your comments can be misinterpreted, it is human nature that someone will take the wrong meaning, and this can be easily avoided by actually saying what you really mean, and keeping this in simple language that cannot be misunderstood. Using hierarchical numbering for the chapters, sections, and sub-sections not only helps to create a clear storyline, it also helps to allow cross-reference to earlier (or future) comments in the dissertation.

It is the role of the research supervisor to read and give comments to help improve the direction of the writing process. The student does not need to like these comments (and indeed, at their own risk, may chose to ignore them) but they should heed them because it is the duty of the supervisor to direct the work of the student to ensure that they give the very best presentation possible of their work for examination and further scrutiny.

Setting a routine


I think it was Graham Greene who used to say that he aimed to write 500 words every day. The novels were soon created. This might not sound like a lot of words, but there are two great advantages to this method. Firstly, 500 words every single day, even when some of the words are later amended or discarded, soon builds up to a substantial narrative. This narrative can then be edited, refined, extended or reduced. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the routine act of writing down 500 words each day cultivates a mind-set which develops with constant practice, so that it becomes easier to express your ideas in writing. For some people, it may never become easy, but it does become easier. It helps if the writer is also a regular reader. To become familiar with the way other writers express themselves in text, even if their language or the style is unfamiliar or even disliked, is a useful skill because it enables the writer to understand their own style, and how to capture in words what they want to say.

Most academic writing has a different appearance in style to other forms of literature, because there is a different purpose behind it. As a scientist, I am the first one to agree that scientific writing can also be creative, but analytical writing for an academic purpose – whether this is for science, arts, or the humanities – demands that the text is anchored in such things as theories, concepts, and evidence. Most non-academic writing (apart from things such as biographies or popular histories) do not require citations (e.g. “(Rennie, 2017)” but these citations are essential for academic work to provide the sources of the evidence on which your subsequent ideas are based.

In order to get into a routine which suits your own working style and personality, you need to experiment a little. Some people, like Graham Greene, prefer to set-aside some time each day to write. Others only write when the mood takes them, when they feel inspired, or when a deadline looms over them. Personally, I find writing very easy to do, and I enjoy it, so I have different behaviour patterns for different situations. I know that I can sit down and produce something very quickly if I need to (like a report of work done), but for deeper and more complex work (such as a journal article or research paper) I like to start off with a working title and some headings to give the article a bit of structure. With the general ‘story-line’ in my head, I will then sit down to write the various sections when I think I know what I want to say in each section. I build the article up, then leave it a couple of days, read it again, and make any minor changes. I rarely re-write anything substantial unless I obtain new information or get feedback from a reviewer to expand upon some point of explanation. So, my routine is to establish what I want to say, build up the article as a story, then tweak the final draft until I am satisfied that I have expressed what I want to convey. Other writers will write, re-write, and re-re-write as their ideas change and the article evolves. A key point in all of this is that the finished piece of text, whether it is a research paper or a dissertation, should be enjoyable for the reader, so try to avoid long, cumbersome sentences and clearly signpost the direction of your discussion. Numbered headings and spell checking is also important, so make sure that you develop your own routine to check and double-check each stage as you progress with your text.

Useful webpages:


Storing and archiving data


When I was doing my own PhD, I had a filing cabinet with three or four drawers, and even then I had hundreds of photocopies of academic papers stacked in small piles according to theme and relevance to the section that I was writing about next. My raw research data, however, was compactly contained in electronic format in the form of tables and graphs; row after row of numbers on spreadsheets which could be tabulated and correlated in any format that I desired. When I left the department, the files were archived for a few years, and then I suspect they were all dumped when the department moved to another building on another campus.

Now, when I generate research data, it is almost entirely in electronic format, and it is automatically stored in several places. I have my personal space in the memory banks of the university computing system, and this space is automatically backed-up overnight. I also usually back-up to my own cloud-space, so that I can access the data wherever and whenever I want. Usually, I also store data for individual projects on a separate memory stick or portable hard-drive. The digital age means that after two or three clicks, I can be assured that copies of my data are safely held in four or five independent locations. Research students can simultaneously share data with a colleague or supervisor in a different part of the world without even leaving their own desk.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, however, because the production of digital data raises almost as many questions as it provides innovative opportunities. There needs to be an early discussion in the supervisory team, for instance, about not simply which data will be stored, but where will it be stored, for how long, and who will have access to it? This is not simply an issue of security, although security, confidentiality, and appropriate use of the data will certainly figure in the discussion. There is a growing awareness that when public money is used to fund research, there needs to be a transparent return on public interest. Initially this has meant that research results, reports, and journal articles, should be made freely available to the public. This is being extended in the next Research Excellence Framework in the UK to insist that if the journal article is not already published as an open resource, it needs to be added as an open source on the digital repository of the relevant institution. But there’s more.

The argument has been extended to include the research data generated by the public funding, so the datasets themselves are trending to become open and shared property. Whether the data is numbers, interviews, audio recordings, photographs, or other recordable results, the likelihood is that the data being gathered by a researcher today, is probably going to be a shared resource tomorrow. It will be possible for other researchers, in subsequent years, to access your raw data, perhaps combine it with other raw data, and re-analyse, re-interpret, and publish their conclusions. It now begins to matter a great deal more seriously exactly who can gain access to your research data, and for what purposes. As the law currently stands, a bona fide researcher can have access to open datasets for up to ten years after they have been deposited. But here is the catch – if a researcher accesses this data after nine years, the open-access clock is automatically re-set for a further ten years. This ensures the certainty that data which is being collected and digitally stored just now, might be still openly available long after the initial researcher has moved on from that research topic, perhaps changed institutions, changed careers, maybe even passed away. The raw data of open access digital resources is now guaranteed a lifetime longer than the career-span of many individual researchers. So think carefully about what you gather, how you organise and store it, and what your legacy of research data will be!

Recording data


Firstly, I’m aware that I have broken the first ‘rule’ of blogging, which is to keep the posts short, and keep them coming regularly, but I had a bit of a hiatus due to other interests and demands over the summer. Hopefully, now to get back on track

Starting to record the new data which is being gathered as part of a research project, whether a long-term study like a PhD, or a quick toe-in-the-water project, is the most crucial, but perhaps the subtlest stage of the research. If you gather too little data, the project may flounder even before it gets started; too much data, and a metaphoric mountain of results can be generated by cross-correlation and individual analysis, which can paralyse a project almost as quickly as having no data at all. Then there is the question of what is the “right” data? How will I know it when I see it? In reality, it is as likely to be different for every individual project as the diversity of methods of data gathering. The correct procedure, of course, is to recognise that recording the correct data is integrally dependant on selecting the correct research methodology, and in carefully selecting how the data will be collected, coded, and stored in the future.

One of the most impressive records of research data that I can remember, is from a scientist who was studying birds of prey, and his handwriting in an old notebook recorded what seemed to me to be almost every conceivable factor which might influence nesting success, including several factors that I, personally, would never have begun to consider relevant. He was of course correct, for it is often the correlations with hidden, and often apparently spurious, information which leads to the really stunning breakthroughs in research projects. There are many different ways of the recording research data that you might collect, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. If you are interviewing people, there is a choice between taking notes, audio recording, or video recording; all these methods have their advantages and disbenefits. Taking notes is less obtrusive, but also can be distracting for the researcher. Audio recording can be done easily with a digital recorder, or a suitable app on a smart-phone, but some people may be more guarded in their responses when they are being recorded, and there is also the problematic issue of what to do with all the data you have gathered. Gathering a huge mass of data can be attractive, but it needs to be proportionate to the scale of the project, because there is little point in generating a mountain of data if 80% is left unanalysed and unused. Great care needs to be taken to strike a balance between collecting a good data-set which provides rich possibilities for future analysis, against de-motivating your participants by presenting them with huge questionnaire or over-long interviews. Similar constraints apply when conducting laboratory experiments, fieldwork, or desk-top studies.

Finally, in addition to having to consider your recording requirements in terms of how you propose to codify and analyse the potential results (there is little point in collecting data so randomly that it cannot be interrogated effectively) there are the issues of long-term storage and access to the data. The research supervisor has a crucial role here, not simply in helping to shape what the research students proposes to gather, or how that might be analysed and interpreted, but in providing the continuity which may extend over several decades and overlap with numerous related research student projects. In an increasingly digital and open educational society, not simply the research results, but also the raw research data is also becoming more open and accessible. It is becoming more possible and more likely that scholars coming after you will read not just your conclusions, but also your original data recording notes, so think carefully about what you collect and how you record it!

Using Skype for research supervision


Over the past few years my colleagues and I have been experimenting with the use of videoconferencing for conducting tutorial discussions with PhD students. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, in a geographically distributed institution like the University of the Highlands and Islands, we are not all conveniently located in the same building, or even the same part of the country. Both staff and students who are participating in the tutorial might be at widely dispersed locations and may rarely meet face-to-face. It used to be the presumption in most universities that the research student would be based in a room just along the corridor, or somewhere convenient within the department, convenient that is for the main supervisor. With the increasing number of part-time research students and the benefits of communications technology, I would argue that this is no longer necessary, and possibly no longer even desirable.

The advantages of using videoconferencing are several, whether it is the high-definition system which the UHI is available at the UHI, or the quick-and-easy Jabber connections for less formal meetings. The use of Skype and Facetime is also common, and can be extended into non-work activities. Firstly, although it is not always imperative to see the person to whom you are talking, the ability to see facial cues does give an extra quality that is not available in simple telephone conversations. In the same way that co-location in the same room allows speakers to see the body-language of their audience, the video presence enables participants to see their colleagues smile, nod their head in agreement, or simply watch their eyes glaze over! I have found this very useful to observe when people actually realise when I am joking and when I am not!

Secondly, probably the most convenient advantage of vc is the ability to connect people from almost anywhere. A regular meeting between the main supervisor and the research student at a distant location can be joined by another supervisor at a third location. This provides the best opportunities for networked support, regardless of where the expertise is based. Meetings can be a highly structured discussion with a formal agenda, or a quick, ten-minute focus on a specific point of deliberation. The participants can join from home, or work, or even from the field, and the media is sufficiently simple and easy-to-use that even short, ad hoc, meetings to discuss the wording of a single paragraph, can be arranged at the drop of a hat.

Thirdly, most video communications services have the ability to record the meeting. This is probably not going to be very useful on every occasion, but for key presentations, or for intense sessions of very complex discussions, the participants have the advantage of being able to replay the meeting, analyse the dialogue, and take notes at their convenience.

In many institutions, whatever the official rhetoric, the contact time between the research students and the main supervisors can be precious little, not to say sporadic. The ability to video-link with the supervision team at prearranged times, wherever they are in the world, is a great tool to give meaningful and networked support to the research student, and to provide quality time when it is most needed.

The Second (or Third) PhD Supervisor


Although the main research supervisor normally has the most contact with a research student, the role of the Second Supervisor also provides a useful balance. Normally the second (and perhaps third) supervisor has a limited contact with the student, perhaps as little as three or four discussions per year, but the input they provide is also valuable. It might be because the two supervisors cover different aspects of the same research problem and so can give different suggestions to cope with problems, or they may favour slightly different research methods and emphasis in the investigation. Even when the advice is similar from both supervisors, it can provide a reassurance that the student is on the right (or the wrong!) track. Research has indicated that the way that we supervise research students is often heavily influenced by the manner in which we were supervised ourselves. Some supervisors prefer a distant role, only making contact through formal meetings to check that the research is progressing well. They expect their research students to independent-minded and self-motivated and see a supervisor’s role as a combination of safety-net (for consultation in times of trouble) and manager (ensuring that all the key stages of development and reporting are taken care of). At the other end of the spectrum there are supervisors who seek to micro-manage the PhD project. Resist this temptation! Although the supervisor has a strong self-interest in ensuring that the student’s research project is successfully completed, the work needs to be done by the student, including making the mistakes, false starts, and the hours of working out the best way forward. The relatively light touch provided by the second supervisor can easily be provided via Skype or other such distance-shrinking audio-visual technology. If it is done on a regular basis, perhaps with some periodic face-to-face meetings, this can also be an option for the main supervisor. A benefit of this is that the supervisory team can be brought together on the basis of the skills and enthusiasm that they provide, not simply because they happen to be co-located in the same building or campus. Gone are the days when a PhD student needs to be based just along the corridor for their main supervisor – and anyway, many research students who were residentially based near their supervisor’s office will tell you that their supervisor was so busy globe-trotting to conferences and fieldwork that they hardly saw them for months at a time. Although the UK universities insist upon an external PhD examiner from a different university to ensure the equivalence of the level of the degree, it’s a pity that there is so much emphasis attached to individual institutions as this would seem to be a great opportunity to bring together cross-institutional expertise at the supervision stage, as well as at the final viva voce.

Online education

I appeared on Fred MacAulay’s programme on BBC Radio Scotland yesterday, talking about online education. The clip is at the end of this piece if you want to listen to it. (It only lasts ten minutes or so). As is often the case with TV and radio media, the content tends to be fairly superficial and fast-changing in order to appeal to the widest range of listeners, but the advantage is that there are a LOT of listeners! In a way, it is interesting how the comments on “degrees by post” or “get a degree without getting out of your pajamas” has given way to a serious radio discussion among a whole range of other items which are simply taken as ‘part of life’.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b052my7v