Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paula Saukko, Reader in Social Science and Medicine, Loughborough University

People recovering from eating disorders often use social media for support, seeking out recovery content, body-positive creators and others with similar experiences.

But recent research my colleagues and I have conducted suggests these platforms can also steer users back towards the very content they are trying to avoid.

We carried out in-depth interviews with people who had experienced eating disorders. Participants described how diet, fitness and body-focused posts repeatedly appeared in their social media feeds, even when they were actively trying to follow recovery content. Supportive and potentially harmful material often surfaced side by side during the same scrolling session.

Participants said they used social media to manage their mental health, following recovery accounts and blocking triggering material. At the same time, many felt recommendation systems continued to introduce weight-loss content, fitness imagery and appearance-focused posts.

Some felt this exposure had contributed to setbacks in their recovery or reinforced unhealthy thought patterns, although these are self-reported experiences rather than causal findings.

This qualitative research captures how people experience social media during recovery. It does not show that social media causes eating disorders, or that exposure to specific content leads directly to relapse. It does, however, highlight how users navigate platforms where recovery and diet content coexist, and how recommendation systems shape their feeds.

A growing body of research suggests this wider environment matters. Studies have linked social media use with body dissatisfaction and disordered eating symptoms, particularly among young people and women, though these relationships are complex and cannot establish causation. Exposure to idealised body imagery, “fitspiration” and diet content has been associated with increased concern about weight and appearance in observational research.

Read more:
Mounting research documents the harmful effects of social media use on mental health, including body image and development of eating disorders

Platform dynamics are also part of the picture. One study found that TikTok’s recommendation system delivered substantially more diet content to users who had indicated eating disorder experiences than to those who had not. Recommendation systems determine what appears in a person’s feed based on patterns of viewing and interaction, which can reinforce existing interests and vulnerabilities.

Other work by researchers in this area has shown how users can become caught in cycles of appearance-focused content online. Research on Instagram and other visual platforms suggests that repeated exposure to diet, beauty and fitness posts can narrow what users see, keeping them within loops of body-related material rather than directing them towards a broader range of interests.

Our interviews add depth to this evidence by showing how these patterns are experienced in everyday life. Participants described moving between recovery content and more harmful material, sometimes within minutes. Several said this constant switching made it harder to disengage from weight-focused thinking, even when they were trying to avoid it.

At the same time, many emphasised the positive role social media played in their recovery. Online content offered reassurance and provided access to experiences and perspectives that were difficult to find offline.

The same platforms that exposed users to triggering material also enabled connection and support. This push-pull dynamic is central to understanding social media’s role in eating disorders. Rather than being purely harmful or beneficial, platforms create environments where supportive and risky content coexist, shaped by both user choices and recommendation systems.

Read more:
Those ‘what I eat in a day’ TikTok videos aren’t helpful. They might even be harmful

NHS survey data indicate that around one in five girls aged 17–19 in England has an eating disorder. This underlines how common these conditions are among young people, who also tend to be heavy users of digital platforms.

These findings raise questions about how social media environments are structured, particularly as governments consider age-based restrictions, such as those introduced in Australia and proposals currently debated in the UK.

We argue our research suggests attempts to make online spaces safer need to go beyond a focus on who can access social media. These efforts need to look at how content is curated and amplified, as platform design and recommendation systems appear to play an important role in shaping exposure.

There are already social media literacy initiatives in schools and elsewhere that aim to help young people critically evaluate idealised body images. Strengthening these programmes to include greater understanding of how recommendation systems work could help users better navigate environments where supportive and harmful content can appear side by side.

As Meta, YouTube and TikTok face lawsuits alleging that aspects of their platform design encourage compulsive use, debates about regulation are likely to intensify. The experiences described in our research suggest that, for people vulnerable to eating disorders, what matters is not simply time spent online, but how feeds are structured and how difficult it can be to avoid appearance-focused material once it enters the algorithmic loop.

Paula Saukko does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How social media draws vulnerable users back to eating disorder content – new research – https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-draws-vulnerable-users-back-to-eating-disorder-content-new-research-275975

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Strange, Associate Professor of International Relations, Malmö University

Artificial intelligence is accelerating a global economic revolution that began back in the 1970s. Researching the impacts of AI on different sectors of society highlights an important parallel moment in history: the creation of the “service economy” in the US.

In 1972, amid a period of global turmoil, a group of OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) economists sought to reinvent how nations thought not only about wealth but the very purpose of society. They did this by proposing a broad new category of commerce: services.

It seems hard to imagine now, but until then economists had perceived and measured trade largely in terms of goods alone. Money was made by exchanging tangible, physical products (wheat, guns, butter). To become a rich nation, the wisdom went, you needed to add unique value to your raw materials (crops, iron) by turning them into more complex products (processed foods, steel) that gave you a competitive advantage over other countries.

Instead, this new category of services lumped together a diverse range of “intangible” jobs and social goods – from teaching and driving trains to social housing and water – in a huge new economic basket. It suggested there could be common standards by which to trade in them globally, creating metrics that offered a new source of wealth for investors.

While it would be two decades until the General Agreement on Trade in Services became a cornerstone of the newly formed World Trade Organization in 1995, the reimagining of jobs and social goods as tradeable services had an immediate effect on nations around the world. It spurred a new wave of private enterprise, and changed how and why essential societal activities were provided.

It also enabled the rise of the generalist boss and the creation of the “CEO class”. To run complex sectors from public transport to healthcare required accepting a view of management as a skill divorced from the specifics of the activity being managed.

Statistics and benchmarks became more important than the particulars of the task at hand, since they determined how services were valued in the market. Consulting firms supercharged this new era of key performance indicators, audits, rankings and standardised workflows.

While trade unions and the public sometimes resisted these changes through strikes and street protests, they were largely unable to stem the tide. Many governments came to see their role less as providers of public goods, more as managers of services outsourced to the private sector. This dramatic shift in how global trade operates set the scene for how we view and measure AI today.

Services on steroids

At its core, AI technology is about seeing patterns across data that, due to scale and complexity, we humans cannot. Acting on what AI tells us can, for example, save lives through early detection of cancer. Yet within that promise, how AI is sold today looks very much like services on steroids.

The services revolution helped create common standards and means of valuation across different sectors of society. Today, when politicians and CEOs speak of AI, it is usually in terms of universal models that can be applied to almost anything, regardless of context or human values.

This understanding is only possible in a society in which many of the sector-specific challenges of, say, health services and utility companies are ironed out and glossed over by those operating and investing in them. The services approach has enabled this.

Today’s gobsmackingly high share valuations in AI-centric businesses result from global marketeers’ desire to own a piece of whichever system dominates how we create society – from accessing healthcare to finding love.

Amid strategies of mass data capture and subscription services, there is the assumption that only the private sector can be a provider – and that the solutions are largely the same. AI is the lucrative but badly defined tool with which mainly US providers are seeking to drive home their existing competitive advantage.

But this leaves us with an important question from history.

Who benefits?

Looking for parallels between what we see as AI today and the creation of the services economy points to the classic question, cui bono? Who benefits?

The invention of trade-in-services greatly expanded the range of activities in which financiers might speculate. Through pension funds and private shareholding, many people’s personal wealth grew rapidly as a result.

But it has also led to the rise of large multinational corporations, for example in energy and water utilities. Anger over rising prices and exorbitant CEO bonuses in these sectors are in part a consequence of the services revolution.

The present approach to AI is following a similar, but much-accelerated, path. The rollout of AI has not only made a small group of companies extraordinarily rich and powerful, it has created a global sovereignty crisis.

At the same time as governments are extolling the virtues of AI for service delivery, there is growing awareness that not all countries have equal control over a technology seen as critical to how society will be run.

To use and regulate AI wisely requires being clear-eyed about whether we are talking simply about technology, or a broader political project. Given the evidence of the services revolution, we believe it is time to look beyond the hype and examine more rigorously what AI actually means for different sectors of society – and what exactly it is trying to achieve.

Michael Strange does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. He is the author of Writing Global Trade Governance: Discourse and the WTO (Routledge, 2013), among other books.

Marisa Ponti does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How the AI boom was enabled by a 1970s economic revolution – https://theconversation.com/how-the-ai-boom-was-enabled-by-a-1970s-economic-revolution-276669

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maxwell Modell, Research associate, Cardiff University

At the 2026 Bafta awards, big wins for independent British film I Swear and American horror film Sinners were overshadowed by a regrettable moment. Activist John Davidson said the N-word – arguably the most offensive slur in the English language due to the centuries of violence and oppression it carries – while Sinners’ stars Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo were presenting an award.

Davidson, on whom the film I Swear is based, has Tourette syndrome – including coprolalia which causes the involuntary use of obscene and socially inappropriate words and phrases.

Jordon and Lindo looked shaken and have since expressed their discomfort and disappointment with Baftas’ handling of the situation. In an apology letter to Bafta members, the academy said it was launching a “comprehensive review” into the incident.

Since the incident, Davidson has received extensive online abuse, including accusations that he is a racist – an accusation that fails to consider that this was an involuntary audible compulsion. Davidson has stressed there was no intention behind the word, stating he was “deeply mortified if anyone considers my involuntary tics to be intentional or to carry any meaning”.

Two things can be true at the same time. While this incident was involuntary, that does not lessen the hurt or offence that Jordan, Lindo and members of the viewing public felt. No one could have prevented Davidson’s involuntary compulsion in the moment.

However, it could have been edited out of the delayed broadcast. In fact, a second slur was removed, but this one was missed. Doing so would have spared viewers from hearing the slur and helped protect Davidson and others with Tourette’s from the abuse that followed. It also could have reduced the spread of misinformation about the condition, which directly undermines the mission of I Swear to teach empathy and kindness towards people with Tourette syndrome.

By broadcasting the Baftas on a two-hour delay in a condensed format, the BBC assumes greater editorial responsibility than with live transmission. It must therefore meet higher standards and be able to justify its editing choices. The BBC failed to do that in this instance, causing undue harm to both black and disabled people.

There are two main reasons why the Baftas are broadcast at a delay. The first is engagement. The award ceremony lasts three hours, so to help make it less tedious, the broadcast is edited down to two hours.

The second is political. The BBC’s editorial guidelines require them to prevent harm and offence to viewers. Award shows are considered high-risk because they are live and broadcasters cannot control what winners say.

This is often called “the tyranny of live”. As media and communications scholar Paddy Scannell wrote, in live broadcasting “if something goes wrong, the best you can do is damage limitation, for once the words are out of your mouth they are in the public domain and they cannot be unsaid”.

Yet, by broadcasting at a delay to mitigate “the tyranny of live”, broadcasters open up a new can of editorial worms – “the tyranny of the edit”.

In live broadcasting, when things go wrong, they can often be blamed on live conditions. While this does not necessarily reduce any harm caused, it can reduce culpability. Once a programme has been edited, this no longer applies, raising the editorial standards and making broadcasters accountable for every word spoken and removed.

In other words, broadcasters must be able to justify every editorial choice to their audience, especially when those choices cause harm or censor a political perspective.

Reaction and lessons for the BBC

The BBC has apologised for broadcasting the slur and re-edited the programme for BBC iPlayer. Producers overseeing the coverage told the Guardian that they did not hear the N-word from the broadcast truck due to a technical issue. That would hardly be a reassuring defence of their actions.

Davidson later said that he was assured by Bafta that any swearing would be edited out of the broadcast, and that he felt “a wave of shame” over the incident. He also questioned the decision to seat him so close to a microphone.

The BBC has also offered no explanation for the post-production removal of sections of My Father’s Shadow director Akinola Davies Jr’s acceptance speech, including a statement of solidarity with “the economic migrant, the conflict migrant, those under occupation, dictatorship, persecution and those experiencing genocide” and the remark “free Palestine”.

Labour MP Dawn Butler has written to the BBC seeking a full explanation for these decisions.

Beyond the immediate fallout, this episode carries wider lessons for the BBC about learning from past errors. Last summer, the BBC was found to have broken harm and offence standards after airing “death, death to the IDF” chants in Bob Vylan’s Glastonbury set. After this incident, they promised to review their protocols around the livestreaming of “high-risk” events. Yet a similar misjudgement happened again.

To maintain public trust and support, the BBC must be more responsive in explaining their editorial choices – and more forthcoming when they get things wrong.

Maxwell Modell receives funding from the AHRC for research into broadcasters’ impartiality.

– ref. Baftas racial slur controversy: what should the BBC have done? – https://theconversation.com/baftas-racial-slur-controversy-what-should-the-bbc-have-done-276801

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christoph Randler, Professor, Department of Biology, University of Tübingen

At 5am, social media fills with proof that the early risers have already won the day. Cold plunges. Journals. Sunrise runs. Productivity gurus insist this is the routine that separates high performers from everyone else, reinforced by high-profile early risers such as Apple CEO Tim Cook, entrepreneur Richard Branson and Hollywood actor Jennifer Aniston.

The message is simple: wake earlier, perform better. But the science tells a more complicated story. For many people, a 5am routine clashes with their biology and can undermine both health and productivity. Much depends on your individual biological rhythm, or “chronotype”.

Chronotypes reflect when people naturally feel alert or sleepy, and genetics play a major role in shaping them. Research shows that sleep timing is partly rooted in our genes, and chronotype is heritable. Chronotype also shifts across the lifespan, with adolescents tending toward later sleep pattern and older adults often shifting earlier. Most people are not extreme larks or owls, but fall somewhere in between.

Morning types, often called larks, wake early and feel alert soon after. They tend to rise early even at weekends without needing an alarm. Evening types, or owls, feel more energetic later in the day and may perform best at night. Many people fall somewhere in between as intermediate types.

Chronotypes in daily life

Studies often find differences between chronotypes. Morning types tend to report better academic outcomes, including better school and university performance. They are also less likely to report substance use, including lower rates of smoking, alcohol and drug use, and they are more likely to exercise regularly.

Evening types, on average, show higher rates of burnout and are more likely to report poorer mental and physical health. One explanation is chronic misalignment. Evening types are more likely to live out of sync with work and school schedules, leading to repeated sleep restriction, fatigue and accumulated stress.

Chronotype also appears to relate to broader behavioural tendencies, including differences in political attitudes, conscientiousness, procrastination and adherence to schedules. These patterns reinforce how chronotype shapes daily behaviour, not just sleep.

A common belief is that adopting an early routine will deliver the same benefits seen in natural morning types. However, chronotypes are not easily changed. They are shaped by genetics and circadian biology. For many evening or intermediate types, waking earlier than their natural rhythm can lead to sleep debt, reduced concentration and poorer mood over time.

This is the key point: early rising itself does not create success. People tend to perform best when their daily schedules align with their biological rhythms. Morning-oriented people often thrive in systems structured around early starts, while evening types may struggle not because they are less capable, but because their peak alertness occurs later.

Early-rising experiments can feel effective at first. The initial boost often reflects motivation and attention rather than lasting biological change, similar to what happens after life changes such as starting a new job. As routines stabilise, the mismatch between biology and schedule can become harder to sustain.

Biological clocks versus social clocks

The gap between a person’s natural rhythm and their social schedule is known as social jetlag. It reflects how far daily life pushes people away from their biological clock.

Social jetlag has been associated with poorer academic performance and wellbeing. Living out of sync with natural sleep patterns has also been linked to higher rates of diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity. Forcing early rising may increase this mismatch for some people, particularly evening types.

Some studies suggest that morning types have an advantage in their careers. These findings are often interpreted as evidence that morning routines drive achievement. A more likely explanation is structural. Modern societies are organised around early schedules. When biological rhythms align with work and school timing, performance is easier to sustain. This creates an environment where morning types appear to have an advantage.

Rather than forcing early routines, the more useful question is how to identify your own rhythm and work with it. Chronotype is only one factor shaping performance, alongside environment, opportunity and personal circumstances, but understanding it can help people make more realistic decisions about daily routines.

Owl or lark?

Understanding your chronotype starts with observing your natural sleep patterns.

Keep a sleep log noting bedtimes and wake times across workdays, weekends and holidays. Free days often reveal your natural rhythm. Track mood and energy levels to see when you feel most alert.

Notice how long it takes to fall asleep. Less than 30 minutes suggests your bedtime suits you. More than an hour may indicate a later chronotype.

Observe how you respond to daylight saving time changes in spring. If early mornings still feel natural after the shift, you may lean toward a morning type.

Changing chronotype is difficult, but small adjustments may help. Instead of waking earlier straight away, try going to bed slightly earlier, including at weekends. If sleep comes easily, you may gradually shift toward an earlier rhythm.

Morning daylight exposure and limiting screens in the evening can also support earlier sleep timing. Even so, biology sets limits. The real productivity advantage lies not in waking earlier, but in designing routines that match how the brain and body actually function.

Christoph Randler does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The 5am myth: why waking early won’t make you more successful – https://theconversation.com/the-5am-myth-why-waking-early-wont-make-you-more-successful-276031

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Beng Huat See, Professor of Education Research, School of Education, University of Birmingham

Our experts have been digging into the detail of the government’s proposed education reforms, published on 23 February, which include measures to improve teacher recruitment, student achievement and belonging at school. Here’s what they thought.

Read more:
Send reform: will the government’s plans work for children, parents and teachers? Experts react

Improving engagement with school

Simon Edwards, Senior Lecturer in Youth Studies, University of Portsmouth

A central tenet of the government’s new education proposals is building confidence in the education system as a pathway to economic and personal wellbeing. As part of this, the proposed policy includes a focus on addressing the persistent and alarming increase in school exclusions and absence of disadvantaged pupils, many of whom have special educational needs and disabilities.

The proposals include taking a broader, multi-agency approach including experts from beyond the school, such as speech and language therapists, educational psychologists and wider professionals to address the many factors that lead to poor behaviour, educational disengagement and subsequent school exclusion. This recognises the complexity of special educational needs and the issues surrounding disadvantage that extend beyond the school gates.

Underpinning these changes though, is an iron fist in a velvet glove approach. Here, inclusion will be supported with “refreshed behaviour resources”. The underlying message is to comply or feel the consequences.

Moreover, the focus on multi-agency working, although taking much pressure from teaching staff and includes parents in discussions, takes a top-down approach to addressing the child’s and their family’s needs. This risks disempowering parents and further alienating them and their children from the very sense of belonging and inclusion that this policy aims to address. I’m not convinced that this approach will reduce behavioural issues and exclusion rates in the way it intends.

Current research identifies and promotes teaching practices that place the relationships between teacher, parent and pupils at the heart of education.

With this in mind, pupil behaviour and exclusions might be more positively addressed by reducing teacher workload. This would allow teachers to spend more time building and maintaining relationships with pupils and parents. Building an understanding of their needs more fully would allow teachers to adapt teaching approaches and build in the right support from the ground up.

Teacher recruitment and retention

Beng Huat See, Professor of Education Research, University of Birmingham

The government’s policy announcements for schools in England are accompanied by a plan for recruiting the 6,500 more teachers promised in Labour’s election manifesto. One of the approaches is to widen routes into teaching. This proposal is not new, and the announcements provide little clarity on how this will be implemented.

My previous research with colleague Stephen Gorard found that some applicants were rejected simply because they applied to programmes that were not appropriate for their qualifications or experience. Expanding routes further, without simplifying or rationalising the system, risks compounding this problem rather than improving recruitment.

To encourage former teachers to return, the government also proposes supplementing current provision with a step-by-step guide offering advice on applications, interviews, classroom experience and updates on changes in the profession. While supportive in principle, it is unclear whether these are the main barriers. Prior research suggests that many returners seek part-time or flexible working arrangements. In practice, schools have often been unable or unwilling to accommodate such flexibility, limiting successful re-entry.

Read more:
Why UK government policies have failed to recruit enough teachers for years

In a bid to bring greater diversity to teaching, the government proposes anonymising applications. This is a positive step, but it is insufficient. Candidates still appear before interview panels, where visible characteristics such as ethnicity or accent may influence perceptions. The policy proposals do not go far enough in addressing structural barriers, including racial stereotyping, where assumptions about capability are shaped by ethnicity rather than performance evidence.

My research with colleagues shows that ethnic minority teachers are more likely to be appointed by leaders of the same background, indicating that unconscious bias continues to shape recruitment and constrain equal opportunity.

Some minority ethnic teachers are more likely to have requests for continued professional development rejected compared to white colleagues. They may also be less likely to be encouraged to apply for promotion than their white colleagues.

Closing the attainment gap

Stephen Gorard, Professor of Education and Public Policy, Durham University

The government is pledging to halve the poverty attainment gap during its term. The attainment gap is the difference in scores between disadvantaged pupils and the rest, at key stage two (age 11) or key stage four (age 16).

This is both commendable and feasible. However, the government also plans to change the current definition of temporary disadvantage (ever eligible for free school meals in the past six years) to one based on low income over a sustained period of time.

Using the depth and duration and poverty is an improvement to the current situation that I have been advocating for many years. Using household income could also be an improvement on the binary threshold indicator of free school meals.

However, it is not then clear what the halving of the gap refers to. The gap as it stands does not use income but free school meals, so the pledge has not been meaningfully defined.

It is also not clear that the data available on household income is yet good enough quality to sustain real-life policy. The data is better for those families currently claiming benefits, but inaccurate for many others. Using the current data might simply disguise that the binary threshold is still being used.

More support for the youngest children

Cate Carroll, Executive Dean of the Faculty of Education and Social Sciences and Professor of Education and Pedagogy, Liverpool Hope University

Today’s policy announcements recognise the critical period of early years education. The investment of over £200 million in the Best Start Family Hub network, meaning that hubs will have dedicated expertise in Send and a staff member to act as an outreach and support person, is welcome. It begins to rebuild the local hubs formerly known as Sure Start, which made a real difference to children’s lives.

The policy focuses on families as the primary educators of children – they are placed at the centre of the child’s home and school experience. This is important because parents know their children and are the best advocates for their needs.

Sometimes, though, ensuring a fair partnership in the conversation between parents and professionals can be difficult. Parents are experts about their children, while professionals bring expertise aligned with their profession and training.

The funding targeted towards early identification of children who have special educational needs and disabilities is also vital. International research backs early intervention as key to ensuring that children’s learning and development needs are appropriately identified. More often that not, this is identified in nurseries, so it is critical that this funding captures this phase of education in addition to schools.

This comes with the challenge of training staff working with children in the early years foundation stage so they are appropriately qualified to identify additional needs. By the time children start school, sometimes the interventions are too late to enable them to achieve and thrive.

Beng Huat See receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

Cate Carroll is affiliated with OMEP World Organisation for Early Childhood, Vice President for OMEP World, European Region.

Simon Edwards receives funding from Charles Plater Trust / SLN-COP. He is affiliated with OCR Sociology Forum / OCR EDiP Belonging and Stakeholder group.

Stephen Gorard has received funding from the ESRC and DfE for research that might be relevant to this article.

– ref. Major education reforms in England unveiled – here’s what the experts think – https://theconversation.com/major-education-reforms-in-england-unveiled-heres-what-the-experts-think-276785