Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chris Waiting, Chief Executive Officer, The Conversation

Professor Nishan Canagarajah, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Leicester, is to step down as Chair of The Conversation Trust UK’s Board of Trustees at the end of 2025, after four years in the role.

I have had the privilege of working closely with Nishan since he joined our board, and we are enormously grateful for his guidance, support and strategic vision. His understanding of what universities need, his ability to see the bigger picture whilst staying grounded in the practical realities we face, and his genuine passion for our mission have been invaluable.

Nishan’s relationship with The Conversation goes back almost a decade. He first joined our Editorial Board when he was Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research at the University of Bristol, before being appointed as a Trustee in April 2020, shortly after he became Vice-Chancellor at Leicester. When he took over the Chair from Professor Colin Riordan in 2021, he brought both deep sector knowledge and fresh thinking about how we could evolve.

With Nishan as Chair, we have strengthened our position as a critical partner for UK Higher Education, deepening our relationship with UKRI, Research England and Medr in Wales, and launching our commercial subsidiary, Universal Impact. But more than that, he has helped us stay focused on what matters: being responsive to the needs of our member universities and the thousands of academics who write for us each year, particularly at a time when the sector faces unprecedented challenges.

Nishan has been a powerful advocate for universities reclaiming their voice in public debate. As he wrote recently, “Universities do not need to shout louder – they need to be heard more”. This vision sits at the very heart of what The Conversation does. His belief in “the return of the expert” and the need for universities to step forward, shape the debate, and participate in the national conversation echoes our core purpose of bringing academics and researchers together to engage directly with the public.

When The Conversation UK launched in 2013 with Professor Sir Paul Curran as Chair, we were an improbable experiment, encouraging academics to speak directly to the public. Today, thanks to Nishan, Colin and Sir Paul, we’re an essential part of the research communication and UK Higher Education landscape. Our global network reaches more than 40 million readers each month, creating genuine pathways to impact for academics and institutions. As universities navigate the difficult times ahead, The Conversation’s role in demonstrating research impact and engaging new audiences has never been more important.

We congratulate Nishan on his recent appointment as Chair of the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA), and thank him wholeheartedly for his dedication to The Conversation’s mission. He leaves us in excellent shape, and we’re grateful for everything he’s given us.

Dr David Levy, our Deputy Chair, will chair the Board in the interim whilst we recruit Nishan’s successor. If you’re interested in learning more about the Chair role, you can find details and how to apply here.

– ref. Professor Nishan Canagarajah steps down as Chair of The Conversation UK – https://theconversation.com/professor-nishan-canagarajah-steps-down-as-chair-of-the-conversation-uk-268912

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sean Brophy, Senior Lecturer, Manchester Metropolitan Business School, Manchester Metropolitan University

In the upcoming budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to raise the minimum wage to £12.70 an hour: £26,416 annually for a full-time job. This means that the gap between salaries for minimum wage jobs and those for professional jobs that require a degree is shrinking fast.

Some smaller law firms are already paying newly qualified solicitors barely more than minimum wage. “Why would young people take on £45,000 of student debt if they can earn the same stacking shelves?” one executive told the Financial Times.

The concern from business leaders is understandable, but it’s focused on the wrong problem. This isn’t a story about university losing its value. It’s a story about Britain becoming a lower wage economy.

Based on all available evidence, university remains a sound long-term investment. The raw undergraduate earnings premium – the simple difference between graduate and non-graduate median salaries – stands at £11,500 per annum.

Earnings by education level:

Earnings typically accelerate as graduates progress through their careers and gain labour market experience. The lifetime earnings premium – the additional amount graduates earn over their working lives compared to non-graduates – remains substantial. The most comprehensive recent analysis estimates that the average UK graduate earns about 20% more in net lifetime earnings than a comparable non-graduate – equivalent to roughly £130,000 for men and £100,000 for women after taxes and student loan repayments.

The issue isn’t whether university pays off. It’s that in the current UK economy, everything pays off less.

It bears emphasising here that investing in education remains the primary mechanism an individual has to improve their life chances. In other words, the problem is structural and not the fault of recent graduates.

Britain’s lower wage trajectory

Britain is undergoing a fundamental shift in its economic position relative to competitor nations. It’s transitioning from a top-tier wage economy to a mid-tier one.

The compression of graduate starting salaries against the minimum wage is merely a symptom of this broader downward trend. Since the 2008 financial crisis, UK wage growth has stagnated compared to other advanced economies.

Wage growth in G7 countries, 2008-2024:

Much has been written about Britain’s so-called “productivity puzzle”, but one of the likely culprits is the fact that British executives don’t invest in training their workers compared to their international competitors. Instead the burden of upskilling the UK workforce shifts to universities.

This in turn causes the government to apply pressure to the higher education sector to be more responsive to the needs of employers, which has the perverse effect of calling for the elimination of what are deemed “low value degrees”.

Yet universities are several steps removed from the day-to-day realities of the workplace, and are far less suited to providing role-specific training than employers themselves.

When neither employers nor universities effectively address the skills needed in the economy, the result contributes to a low-investment, low-productivity trap that depresses wages across the entire economy.

The productivity gap:

Until private sector leaders tackle it through renewed training investment, blaming recent graduates or universities for wage compression is misplaced.

Wage compression affects everyone, but it’s particularly visible at the graduate entry level. When the overall wage distribution compresses, entry-level professional salaries get squeezed from below by rising minimum wages and from above by stagnant mid-career earnings.

Risk and reward

The average English graduate now carries £53,000 in student debt. In a high-wage-growth economy, taking on substantial debt to access the graduate premium makes clear sense – you’re buying a ticket to rapid salary progression. In a low-growth economy, the same debt represents a different risk profile for the same investment.

And the social mobility implications are real. Students from families who can afford to subsidise them through university and early career years face less risk than those who cannot.

The fundamental calculus that favours university education hasn’t changed. Educated workers still earn more, enjoy better employment prospects, and have more career options. But the simple fact is that financial returns may be lower in a lower wage economy.

This is similar to how investors adjust expectations after decades of high returns. The question isn’t whether to invest in university, but what financial returns to reasonably expect. A graduate premium of 15% instead of 20% is still a premium. Reaching peak earnings in your early 50s instead of mid 40s is slower, but the trajectory still leads upward.

Britain is settling into a mid-tier wage economy unless firms start investing in workers like their international competitors do. This creates a risk of brain drain, as graduates seek higher wages in countries that value their skills more highly.

Until that changes, universities are urged to scrap “low-value” degrees while employers slash training and expect graduates to bring the skills they no longer provide through training. The graduate premium still exists – but in a lower wage economy, expect it to be smaller.

Sean Brophy 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. University still pays off – even in lower-wage Britain – https://theconversation.com/university-still-pays-off-even-in-lower-wage-britain-268959

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jodie Raybould, Lecturer in Psychology, Coventry University

Perhaps you know someone who always deflects blame onto you. Someone who
smirks when caught in a lie, who twists your words until you’re apologising for their mistakes. And over time, you may start to wonder, can someone like this ever truly change?

You could be talking about a narcissist.

When people high in narcissism feel slighted or criticised, it threatens their fragile or inflated self-esteem, prompting them to react with aggression to protect their self-image. Naturally, when confronted with such behaviour, people often demand change from the narcissist.

But sometimes, the impact isn’t just on others – it’s on the narcissist themselves. Narcissists can be particularly prone to feeling rejected, likely due to the very behaviour that pushes people away. So, can narcissists change with psychological intervention?

First, it’s helpful to understand narcissism as viewed in psychology.

Read more:
What we’ve learned about narcissism over the past 30 years

There are generally two types, grandiose and vulnerable. Grandiose narcissists tend to view themselves as superior to others whereas vulnerable narcissists tend to be hypersensitive to criticism. In both cases, narcissists can be arrogant and self-centred. If these traits become extreme, a person may be diagnosed with something like narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) or be described as having pathological narcissism.

Narcissists can act in a passive aggressive way to undermine you. For instance, such people may socially exclude others and withhold love and affection as a form of punishment.

Other times it may not be so subtle. Research has shown that narcissists can be prone to violence, even when unprovoked.

Read more:
Narcissism – and the various ways it can lead to domestically abusive relationships

Pathological narcissism

While someone with NPD has a lifelong mental health disorder, meaning there is no “cure”, research does suggest that treatment can help manage the symptoms. Treating narcissism normally starts with talking therapies.

This is the classic therapeutic approach where a counsellor sits and talks to their client. The most common technique a counsellor will use for narcissists is cognitive behavioural therapy, which may help people notice and challenge inaccurate or unhelpful thoughts and change their behaviour.

But, when therapists were asked what they thought was the most effective approach as part of a 2015 study, they said they preferred introspective relational techniques. This involves the client exploring their feelings and motivations while the counsellor is nonjudgmental and understanding. That approach is key when working with narcissists because some patients assume the counsellor thinks they are vulnerable.

Fear of vulnerability often goes hand-in-hand with difficulty building a trusting relationship and rapport between the client and counsellor. For example, the client might feel the need to impress their therapist or maintain a confident image, rather than admitting any potential weakness.

Feelings of inadequacy, shame, guilt, aggression and victimisation, can all contribute to this defensiveness in people with narcissism. Counsellors have to recognise and work through these barriers for the intervention to be successful, which takes skill.

When they seek treatment narcissistic patients are often in a vulnerable symptom state, rather than grandiose. But these presentations can co-occur meaning grandiose traits will start to emerge during treatment. The counsellor may then recognise symptoms of NPD in that client and begin to tailor counselling to that diagnosis.

When those barriers hold steadfast, a patient may end their therapy early. There are several other reasons why a patient may drop out, but drop out rates for therapy in general range from 10–50% compared to 63-64% in narcissists.

It is also rare for someone with NPD to seek out therapy in the first place, as they often do not believe that they have a problem. People with NPD often visit their doctor or therapist for a different reason, such as an external problem (like a job loss or divorce) or emotional issue (perhaps depression from perceived rejection).

What are the alternatives?

Most innovations in personality disorder treatment comes from borderline personality disorder, and a few borderline personality disorder treatments have been adapted and tested for narcissists. These approaches tend to be successful in treating borderline personality disorder and examples include dialectical behaviour therapy, mentalisation-based therapy and schema therapy.

Dialectical behaviour therapy focuses on challenging negative thoughts and intense emotions, while accepting who you are. Mentalisation-based therapy helps you make sense of thoughts and beliefs and link them to your behaviour.

In comparison, schema therapy helps challenge unhelpful mental blueprints for how the world works. For instance, if you were neglected as a child you could develop a blueprint that says your needs will never be met by anyone.

But there is limited evidence that these approaches are effective for NPD. And they have the same barriers seen in introspective relational techniques like long treatment times and challenges in building rapport.

In light of these issues, in April 2025 psychiatric researchers Alexa Albert and Anthony Back suggested using psychedelic drugs during therapy could create a window of opportunity where narcissistic clients are more open and emotionally receptive.

MDMA, more commonly known as ecstasy, can enhance empathy, prosocial behaviour, and
feelings of closeness to others. Although, MDMA-assisted therapy has seen success for some conditions, such as post traumatic stress disorder, it may also lead to worsening mental health.

Also, rapport is even more important when you introduce substances to therapy. Rapport is needed in MDMA-assisted therapy so the patient feels safe to trust their therapist while under the influence of the drug.

The treatment faces legal barriers too, since ecstasy is under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs regulations, meaning it has no recognised medicinal use in the UK. Researchers, mental health charities, patients, and some MPs have called for its movement into Schedule 2 to allow clinical trials, but no change has been made yet.

It is important to note that Albert and Back’s suggestion is theoretical, because they haven’t finished any clinical trials yet.

For now, therapists must rely on their skills to build rapport with patients and overcome treatment barriers without chemical assistance. So, yes, narcissists may change, but it takes great care from the therapist and the patience of both counsellor and client.

Jodie Raybould works for Coventry University

Daniel Waldeck works for Coventry University

– ref. Can you treat a narcissist? – https://theconversation.com/can-you-treat-a-narcissist-268504

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex

Dick Cheney, one of the most important figures in America’s neo-conservative movement, has died at the age of 84. Cheney had a long career in government and was considered by many as one of the most powerful vice-presidents in US history.

Cheney started his career in politics in 1968 in the office of William Steiger, a Republican representative from Wisconsin, before joining the staff of Donald Rumsfeld, who was at the time the director of the Office of Economic Opportunity. By 1974, Cheney was brought on to the team of Gerald Ford, who had assumed the US presidency that year following the resignation of Richard Nixon. He followed Rumsfeld as Ford’s White House chief of staff in 1975, at the age of 34.

Cheney then went on to spend over a decade serving as a member of the House of Representatives. He represented a district in Wyoming until 1989 when he was appointed secretary of defense by the then-president, George H.W. Bush.

This experience would prove critical to Cheney’s subsequent selection as running mate by Bush’s son, George W. Bush, for his 2000 presidential campaign as the Republican candidate. Bush Jr. went on to win that election, and his partnership with Cheney would ultimately prove incredibly significant in reshaping US foreign policy in the Middle East.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the neo-conservative movement gained momentum in Washington and found an ally in Cheney. He was a founding signatory of the so-called Project for the New American Century, which became a major forum for neo-conservative thinking. The goal was to promote US interests – namely spreading democracy abroad – through a bold deployment of military power.

This interventionist foreign policy culminated in the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Considered by some to be a shadow president, Cheney had a huge influence over Bush Jr. He reportedly played a major role in convincing Bush to go to war in Iraq.

Cheney expressed no regrets about this decision, calling critics of the war “spineless” in 2005. But a majority of Americans considered this decision to be a grave error.

The war is estimated to have cost the US well over US$1 trillion (£800 billion), and as much as US$3 trillion when taking the wider regional conflict it sparked into account. The war also led to the deaths of as many as 600,000 Iraqi civilians, according to an estimate published by the Lancet medical journal.

There were also questions about whether Cheney had a conflict of interest. He had previously served as the chief executive of Halliburton, a company that won billions of dollars in US military contracts to restore Iraq’s oil sector – this included some of the biggest military logistics contracts in history. Cheney was even accused of coordinating preferential awarding of contracts to the company, though he and Halliburton denied it.

He was also accused of circumventing due process, constitutional checks and congressional oversight during his time as vice-president. A prominent example of this was his involvement in a programme to intercept domestic communications without a judicial warrant.

Cheney was also widely disliked in the intelligence community. Many of these people resented the way he undermined the CIA by, for example, instructing subordinates in the agency to transmit raw intelligence directly to his office.

Change of heart?

Given that Cheney believed executive power needed to be expanded, there was a degree of irony in his decision to endorse the Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris, in the 2024 presidential election. The winner of that election, Donald Trump, also favours an executive unencumbered by institutions.

But Cheney clearly had his limits. While Bush Jr. was reticent to publicly attack Trump, Cheney became one of his harshest critics. This was especially so after Liz Cheney, his daughter and a now former congresswoman, voted to impeach Trump after the insurrection of January 6 2021, which made her enemy number one in Trump’s eyes.

However, some critics claim that it was Cheney’s shadow presidency that paved the way for Trump’s aggressive expansion of the executive power of the presidency. Along the way, he wielded the power of the vice-presidency in a way not been seen before or, arguably, since.

Cheney was not just powerful but prone to operating clandestinely, even creating an independent operation inside the White House. All of this helped fuel mistrust of the government.

As Cheney advanced in age, his stances seemed to be softening from the Darth Vader image he had embraced as vice-president. More than half of the multi-million fortune that Cheney gained from selling his Halliburton stock options, for example, was donated to the Cardiac Institute at George Washington University.

Cheney, who survived five heart attacks and eventually a heart transplant, was seen a political survivor. But the Republican party that he had led in the shadows has been transformed. Once a towering figure in the conservative movement, today his brand of conservatism is a relic of the past.

Natasha Lindstaedt 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. Dick Cheney dies: giant of the US conservative movement whose legacy was defined by the Iraq war – https://theconversation.com/dick-cheney-dies-giant-of-the-us-conservative-movement-whose-legacy-was-defined-by-the-iraq-war-269019