Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

Social media is saturated with menopause solutions: powders for brain fog, gummies for sleep or capsules promising hormonal balance. Supplements such as magnesium, lion’s mane, creatine and collagen are being marketed as must-haves for perimenopause and menopause. But how much of this is actually grounded in science?

During perimenopause and menopause, fluctuating and declining oestrogen levels can trigger symptoms such as hot flushes, night sweats, sleep disruption, anxiety, brain fog, joint pain and changes in muscle mass and body composition.

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) remains the most effective treatment for many symptoms, but not everyone can or wants to use it. This is why alternative remedies attract so much attention.

Magnesium

Magnesium plays a role in more than 300 metabolic processes, including muscle relaxation, nerve signalling and blood pressure regulation. Several menopause-related symptoms overlap with areas where magnesium has effects.

For instance, many menopausal women experience sleep problems. Clinical trials in adults, including older women, show magnesium can improve how fast you fall asleep and reduce insomnia severity.

Anxiety can also be an issue for menopausal women. Meta analyses show magnesium supplements can modestly reduce anxiety symptoms – particularly in people with low magnesium levels. However, this research wasn’t specifically done in menopausal women.

Menopause also places women at higher risk of osteoporosis (weakened bones). As oestrogen levels fall during menopause, certain bone cells become more active, causing bone to be lost faster than it’s rebuilt.

But magnesium contributes to bone density by encouraging the formation of new bone. Given some older women may have low magnesium levels and low bone density, this supplement may help address this menopause-related issue.

However, magnesium has not shown benefit for hot flushes, weight changes or cognitive symptoms.

The type of magnesium you take matters. Magnesium citrate and glycinate tend to be better absorbed by the body, while magnesium oxide is absorbed less efficiently.

It’s also important to note high doses can cause diarrhoea and may affect the heart and nervous system. People with kidney disease should avoid supplementation unless medically supervised.

Lion’s mane mushrooms

Lion’s mane mushroom is promoted to help with brain fog, a common complaint for women going through the menopause.

Animal studies suggest lion’s mane extract may stimulate new brain cell growth and support the hippocampus – the brain structure involved in memory and emotional regulation.

A different animal study also showed the supplement reduced depressive-like behaviour in menopausal rats.

But the small human trials that have been done show mixed results – with only some reporting mood improvements. Importantly, none of these studies involved menopausal women.

If you’re still keen to try the supplement, it’s usually well tolerated – though those with mushroom allergies should avoid it.

Creatine

Although researchers have studied creatine for decades, most of that work has focused on men. But emerging research suggests it has many benefits for women in perimenopause and menopause.

A 14-week study found creatine supplementation significantly increased lower body strength and improved sleep quality in perimenopausal women. These improvements in muscle strength are notable, given the increased risk of sarcopenia (loss of muscle mass and function) during menopause.

However, evidence in post-menopausal women is mixed. One review found creatine may offer minor short-term benefits in post-menopausal women, but sustained supplementation didn’t produce significant muscle or bone health improvements.

Creatine may also support the brain. Growing evidence suggests it may support memory, focus and mood – particularly during periods of hormonal fluctuation or mental fatigue. However, more research is needed specifically in menopausal women.

Perimenopausal women have about a 40% higher risk of developing depressive symptoms or receiving a depression diagnosis than premenopausal women (premenopause is the period before any menopausal changes; perimenopause is the transition phase leading to menopause, when symptoms begin to appear). Some limited data suggests that taking creatine alongside an antidepressant can accelerate symptom improvement in women.

Creatine is generally safe, though those with kidney disease should seek medical advice before taking it.

Collagen

Collagen supplements are widely marketed for skin elasticity, joint health and healthy ageing.

Collagen is the body’s most abundant protein, giving structure to bones, cartilage, tendons, ligaments, muscles and skin. As we age, collagen-producing cells become less active. This contributes to visible skin ageing and weaker bones that are more prone to fracture.

A year-long trial in postmenopausal women found daily collagen supplementation led to small but significant increases in bone mineral density compared with a placebo. This suggests collagen supplements may help counter age-related bone loss in postmenopausal women.

Research also indicates collagen supplements may ease joint discomfort and stiffness, particularly in people with osteoarthritis. This could be relevant for menopausal women as many experience the onset or worsening of joint issues during this time. However, more robust research in needed in menopausal women.

It’s important to note that collagen supplements differ widely due to how they’re produced and the source they come from. This makes the evidence hard to interpret.

This means different products can behave very differently in the body. Grouping them together can therefore obscure important differences in how they work. For instance, hydrolysed collagen is absorbed far more easily than the collagen molecules found in food. This means collagen is more likely to reach tissues where they may support skin, joint and muscle health.

Side effects tend to be minimal, although people with liver or kidney conditions should consult a doctor or pharmacist first.

Final verdict

So, are supplements worth it? Based on the current evidence out there, magnesium and creatine seem to be the most beneficial. However, it’s clear more research is needed. Supplements can also be expensive – and their quality can vary widely.

While supplements can feel empowering, until stronger evidence emerges proving their benefits, a healthy lifestyle remains the best, evidence-based way to navigate perimenopause and menopause.

Regular exercise (especially strength training), good sleep habits, balanced nutrition, limiting alcohol and managing stress all support menopausal wellbeing. These approaches also improve long-term health outcomes, including heart and bone health.

Dipa Kamdar 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. Supplements for menopause: here’s what the evidence actually says – https://theconversation.com/supplements-for-menopause-heres-what-the-evidence-actually-says-279892

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sophie King-Hill, Associate Professor at the Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham

There has been much talk about the sex work storylines in the recent series of the show Euphoria. One of the main characters, Cassie Howard (played by Sydney Sweeney), starts an OnlyFans account to fund her upcoming wedding. In the last two episodes, viewers have watched her create videos for different “audiences”.

In one video, for instance, she dresses up as a dog in a bid to attract those interested in the kink sub genre known as “pup play”. This is a form of fetishistic animal play in which canine traits are adopted through apparel and dog-like behaviours.

In another video, she acts sexually provocative while dressed as a baby with a dummy and pigtails. When explaining why to another character, she says it’s related to a subculture of people who want to dress as babies. She explains people want to see her with “teething rings, bassinets, some people even want to see me wear a diaper”.

This has drawn concern from viewers over the portrayal and potential normalisation and glamorisation of adult sexual content styled to evoke infancy. As researchers of harmful sexual behaviours and online sexual cultures, we shared their concerns over the scene.

The writer of the show, Sam Levison, has stated that this storyline was intended as a dark satire of the nature of online sexual content. For Euphoria, this is simply part of a shock tactic, nothing more. However, the implications and cultural impact are far more harmful and far-reaching than that.

Warped logic

Cassie’s storyline does highlight a growing normalisation of sexual content that blurs the boundaries of damaging sexual interests and behaviours. However, how it handles this seems to imply that content like Cassie’s is acceptable and even legitimate.

It is important to note that OnlyFans’ acceptable use policy prohibits “illegal activity including actual, claimed, or role-played: exploitation, abuse, or harm of individuals under the age of 18.”

What Cassie is creating is content that sexualises children and young people; she is dressing up as a baby and acting provocatively. In our research, we see some people use warped logic to present their consumption of such content as legitimate. If the content features an adult role-playing as a child, they argue, then it is an acceptable way to indulge their sexual interest. It is not, according to their logic, reflective of harmful sexual interests in children, but a totally separate thing.

However, what researchers have found is that this sort of thinking, and the content that caters to it, confuses the boundary between adulthood and childhood. It also perpetuates, instead of stops, the sexualisation of childhood.

Shows such like Euphoria, especially ones aimed at young people, should have cultural accountability. We know that repeated exposure to these issues reshapes norms around sexuality, power and protection, particularly for young audiences navigating already complex digital environments. So such storylines in mainstream shows like Euphoria do really run the risk of aiding the normalisation and escalation of exploitative viewing practices.

One in 20 children in the UK experiences sexual abuse each year, and there is extensive work being done by charities on prevention, recovery and early intervention. Cultural portrayals that bear no relation to the profound pain, trauma and lifelong impact experienced by survivors run the risk of aestheticising, glamourising or trivialising sexual harm and risks undermining the work.

This storyline must also be understood within a wider socio-cultural context shaped by the exposure to prolonged and systemic sexual exploitation of children by powerful men, most notably through the Jeffrey Epstein case. Epstein’s abuse was enabled not only by individual actions, but by a cultural environment in which sexual access to young people was normalised, aestheticised and shielded by wealth, influence and networks of protection.

In the aftermath of these revelations, public sensitivity to the sexualisation of children and young people has markedly increased, alongside a growing recognition of how harmful sexual interests can be obscured through narratives of consent, glamour or alternative lifestyles. Against this backdrop, Euphoria’s depiction of sexualised infantilisation is especially troubling.

Rather than engaging critically with the conditions that allow exploitation to be disguised or legitimised, the series risks reproducing the very mechanisms of normalisation, desensitisation and commercialisation through which sexual abuse has historically flourished. In doing so, it reflects a failure to learn from recent, widely documented harm, reinforcing the need for greater ethical accountability in cultural production.

Sophie King-Hill receives funding from ESRC.

Kieran McCartan 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. Euphoria: thoughtless depictions of adults pretending to be sexualised infants are extremely harmful – https://theconversation.com/euphoria-thoughtless-depictions-of-adults-pretending-to-be-sexualised-infants-are-extremely-harmful-281172

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Blane Savage, Lecturer in MA Creative Media Practice, University of the West of Scotland

Joan Eardley was one of the most unique and celebrated artists of her generation, but the international acclaim and recognition that her work deserves eluded her. Her paintings are not only foundational in Scotland’s cultural history, but continue to influence its creative landscape, particularly with those concerning dialogue around community and the poetics of place.

Currently on view in the National Galleries Scotland: Modern Two until June 28, Joan Eardley: The Nature of Painting, explores this popular post-war artist’s relationship to her predecessors and contemporaries.

Joan Kathleen Harding Eardley was born to a Scottish mother and English father in Sussex in 1921, and studied at Blackheath School of Art in London for a year before moving with her mother and sister to Glasgow during the outbreak of the second world war in 1939. She continued her studies at Glasgow School of Art and Hospitalfield in Arbroath, known as Scotland’s first school of fine art.

It was during this time that she began to shape her preference for painting everyday subjects. She used an RSA Carnegie Travelling Scholarship to travel through Italy and France in 1948 and 1949. On her return to Glasgow she spent time drawing and painting the industrial landscape of Port Glasgow, and Gourock. Eardley rented a studio in the city centre of Glasgow, and a few years later moved to Townhead in the east end, where local children became her favourite artistic subjects.

More than 30 of Eardley’s artworks are juxtaposed at Modern Two alongside figures of international renown including Claude Monet, Marc Chagall, John Constable, Jean Dubuffet and Antoni Tàpies, together with her contemporaries Henry Moore, Bet Low and William McTaggart.

It places Eardley within an international art world which blends post-impressionism, social realism and abstraction. Jackson Pollok and the French Tachistes were known to have influenced her practice.

The exhibition is further enriched by a selection of archival and photographic materials containing a range of sketches, photographs and personal artefacts giving a glimpse into the life behind the artworks which are on display in the adjoining Keiller Library.

There are also several of her large works situated in Paolozzi’s Kitchen restaurant adjacent to the two exhibition spaces, alongside the likes of Scottish artist and contemporary Anne Redpath.

Connections with painters

The first exhibition space includes several of Eardley’s social-realist figure depictions of 1950s inner-city Glaswegian children. The works have a joyful, raw, playful spirit to them, in spite of the squalid slum environment the children were living in. No artist has painted Glasgow’s “weans” (a local word for children) in the way that Eardley has.

In Children and Chalked Wall No.3 (1962-63), sisters Mary and Pat Samson are painted in Eardley’s signature bold unsparing style, with their affectionate, endearing smiles, both huddled together. Their cheery faces, animated by Eardley’s blocks of colour, emerge from a background layered with graffiti and collage, anchoring her work in social reality.

Her work is surrounded by portraits by Rembrandt van Rijn, Jean-Francois Millet, Jean Dubuffet, Edward Hornel and Bet Low. Children and Chalked Wall No.3’s highly prized neighbour in the exhibition is Marc Chagall’s The Horse Rider (1949-53), a surreal gouache painted work with a block of azure-blue textured background with three figures and a horse, set within a Paris circus. Like Eardley’s work, it is also social-realist and figurative, with abstract elements incorporated within it. The female horse rider is a recurring theme for Chagall.

Eardley’s Street Kids (1949–51) captures a fleeting moment of camaraderie among three local boys. It is quiet and reflective, telling the stories of real Glasgow children who lived close to Eardley’s studio in Townhead, and captures the friendliness and community spirit that Eardley admired.

She does not shy away from the material conditions of post-war urban life, alluding to poverty, dirt and the presence of neglect. Again, colour is blocked in with minimum detail and repeating patterns of brickwork ground the piece. There is a respect of their resilience in her portraiture.

Exhibition space two is focused on Eardley’s relationship with Catterline, a small coastal village in the north east of Scotland near Stonehaven. In 1954, she bought a cottage to work there. Catterline’s rugged coastal landscapes and dynamic seascapes were central to many of Eardley’s paintings, providing the perfect stage setting for her expressive creativity to flourish.

Eardley worked between Glasgow and Catterline for several years and there are stories during that time of Eardley leaving Glasgow when she heard a storm was coming. Like tornado chasers, she travelled across the country to capture the coming storm’s power on the shore front where she would set up hardboard canvases to paint in its centre amid the lashing wind and rain like a woman possessed.

Her beautiful atmospheric painting Catterline in Winter (1963) set with a grey sky and full moon lighting up the snow-covered landscape is positioned next to Claude Monet’s Grainstacks: Snow Effect (1891). Both have an otherworldly sense about them, evoking a still and silent feeling of deep winter muffled by the frozen earth.

Eardley’s Summer Fields near Catterline (about 1961) with its expressive brushstrokes, shows stalks of corn in a bright golden cornfield set by a grey and black background is the highlight of the show.

She was elected an Academician of the Royal Scottish Academy of Art in 1963, just prior to her untimely passing from cancer later that year aged 42. Eardley’s ashes were scattered on the beach at Catterline, creating a lasting connection between the artist and the place which inspired her later works.

By situating her practice within a collaboration of artistic significance, the exhibition highlights the extent to which her work contributes to the central concerns of 20th-century painting. Not least the tension between representation and abstraction in her work and the enduring challenge of responding to the world, whether urban or elemental.

Joan Eardley: The Nature of Painting is on at the National Galleries Modern Two in Edinburgh until June 28

Blane Savage 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. Joan Eardley: ‘she would set up her canvas on the shore and paint in the lashing wind and rain like a woman possessed’ – https://theconversation.com/joan-eardley-she-would-set-up-her-canvas-on-the-shore-and-paint-in-the-lashing-wind-and-rain-like-a-woman-possessed-281174

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Patrick Diamond, Professor of Public Policy, Queen Mary University of London

Keir Starmer’s decision to fire Foreign Office chief Olly Robbins has contributed to “one of the worst crises in relations” between ministers and civil servants in modern times. The words of former cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell, writing after Robbins was sacked for declining to inform Starmer that Peter Mandelson failed vetting for his ambassador role, are a stark warning for the prime minister.

Such a crisis has been building for some time. Historically, British civil servants and ministers had a strong bond based on a mutually beneficial partnership. Yet that partnership is badly frayed, and in its place a “them v us” relationship is emerging.

Under the previous Conservative government, ties between ministers and civil servants atrophied. A major source of tension was Brexit, amid frustration that officials were allegedly conspiring to derail Britain’s departure from the European Union.

More uncompromising figures, notably Boris Johnson’s chief strategist Dominic Cummings, believed that the permanent civil service was “an idea for the history books”. In his view, it was time to cut back the permanent bureaucracy, and bring in outsiders to rewire the state. Cummings threatened that a “hard rain” would fall. Ministerial relations with civil servants sank to a new low.

The expectation within Whitehall was that the election of a new government under Starmer would restore order and civility. After all, Starmer was himself a former permanent secretary at the Crown Prosecution Service, who believed in the ethic of public service. The fractured ties between officials and ministers would be repaired.

It has not, so far, worked out that way. In key respects, relationships appear to have deteriorated further. This has now been exacerbated by the summary dismissal of Robbins over the Mandelson affair.

---

Read more:
Why have relations between civil servants and ministers turned so sour – and can they be repaired?

---

Why do such tensions between officials and ministers in Whitehall persist? A key factor is that civil servants clearly believe they are less equipped to support ministers than they were 20 years ago. This has come up frequently in my interviews and private conversations with current and former civil servants.

Increasingly, the civil service lacks the experience and tools to advise ministers on policy. This problem began in the 1980s, with the rise of new public management – government reforms in several countries emphasising efficiency through markets and competition. Attention shifted towards operational delivery, away from policy-making. There has been a marked loss of intellectual capacity, while some civil servants bemoan the absence of creative policy thinkers in Whitehall.

Another issue is that the civil service appears less willing to look outwards, exacerbating what political scientists Ivor Crewe and Anthony King describe as “operational and cultural disconnect”. Officials in government departments appear more detached than ever from frontline professionals (the so-called “street-level bureaucrats” who manage public services), as well as from citizens and communities.

Who is responsible?

To blame the civil service for the current malaise is surely mistaken. After all, politicians are elected to lead and provide a coherent sense of direction. Civil servants support ministers’ ambitions by faithfully implementing the government’s agenda.

The Starmer administration came to office without a credible governing strategy. Apart from woolly rhetoric about “missions”, incoming ministers had no clear conception of how to strengthen government effectiveness.

A particular gap related to improving performance in public services, notably education, health, criminal justice and public transport. Most governments arrive in Whitehall with instincts about how to achieve change. Some use the central state alongside targets to mandate improvement. Others adopt bottom-up mechanisms including giving citizens more of a voice in shaping public services, while extending choice and competition in the organisation of provision.

Yet Starmer’s ministers appear to have no consistent approach. For example, NHS policy combines top-down directives with exhortation about creating a “community-led” service. The result is widespread confusion. In turn, slowness to deliver change breeds frustration among ministers, leading almost inevitably to attacks on the capability of civil servants, escalating tensions further.

It was the prime minister himself who declared that “too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline”, setting the tone for the rest of his government. Yet, inexperienced politicians are naive about the time it takes to secure sustainable improvement.

The dismissal of Robbins appears to be a continuation of the recent era in which ministers treated their relationships with officials with casual disregard. When crises erupt or policies appear to fail, civil servants are made culpable.

Yet such blame games are destructive, not least because they make it harder for civil servants to discharge their essential constitutional function of “speaking truth to power”.

In an atmosphere of growing distrust, officials are less likely to highlight problems in proposed policies. Where career promotion relies on doing what ministers are perceived to want, the risk is that propriety and ethics are negated, having a “chilling effect” on the wider civil service.

A dominant characteristic of civil service reform in recent decades is making officials more “responsive” to ministers. For example, permanent secretaries are employed on time-limited contracts intended to create pressure to perform. Moreover, increasing the contestability of policy advice by turning to political advisers, thinktanks, NGOs and the private sector disrupts the monopoly which civil servants previously held in the policy-making process (although that was always something of a myth).

Such a dynamic increases the pressure on civil servants to comply with what ministers demand. Otherwise, in a more competitive policy landscape, they risk marginalisation. Consequently, the civil service is less likely to fulfil its crucial role in acting as a break on overweening executive power and unchecked authority. That is detrimental to the fulfilment of good government.

Patrick Diamond receives funding from the ESRC as part of the governance and institutions project at the Productivity Institute. He is a former government special adviser, a member of the Labour party and the Fabian Society.

– ref. What Mandelson vetting row reveals about escalating tensions between ministers and civil servants – https://theconversation.com/what-mandelson-vetting-row-reveals-about-escalating-tensions-between-ministers-and-civil-servants-281254

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andy Phippen, Professor of IT Ethics and Digital Rights, Bournemouth University

The announcement by the government that a legal ban will be placed on mobile phones in English schools marks a continued shift in tone, if not necessarily in substance, around the control of devices in educational settings.

What is being presented as a decisive intervention into children’s wellbeing is, in practice, the legal amplification of a reality that already exists across most schools. According to research last year by the Children’s Commissioner, around 90% of secondary schools and almost all primary schools already restrict phone use in some form.

These restrictions range from outright bans to locking phones away or “not seen, not heard” approaches (where phones are allowed on school premises, and may be kept in pupils’ bags, but must not be used). The ban will make existing guidance for schools statutory.

This raises an immediate question: if the practice is already widespread, why make it law?

There are, on the surface, reasonable arguments for moving from guidance to legislation. First, this gives school leaders clarity. A statutory footing removes ambiguity and may strengthen schools’ position when challenged by parents.

Second, it provides consistency between schools. A legal requirement creates a baseline expectation across the system, reducing variation between schools.

And finally, there is political signalling. The government is able to demonstrate action on an issue that resonates strongly with public concern.

However, the policy also illustrates a dynamic in education and online safety policy I have written about at length – a move from practice to performance.

If nearly all schools already restrict phones, then the legal change risks being largely symbolic. Sector leaders have acknowledged that “a statutory ban… doesn’t really change very much”.

More critically, it reframes a question of professional judgement as one of compliance. Since 2011, headteachers have had the authority to discipline pupils and set behaviour policies, including banning phones. What changes here is not capability, but the removal of discretion or, arguably, trust in school leadership.

Need for clarity

And, paradoxically but predictably, while the policy may be unnecessary for some, it is insufficient for others. Campaigners and politicians have already criticised the move for potentially retaining flexibility – particularly the “not seen, not heard” model – which they argue fails to meaningfully remove phones from the school day.

Olivia Bailey, parliamentary under-secretary of state in the Department of Education, insisted in the most recent debate that “We are categorically crystal clear that there is no access to phones at any point during the school day”, and that references to “not seen, not heard” approaches had been removed from guidance.

But she also stated: “It is not for me to determine how a headteacher enforces their discipline and behaviour policies in their school.” Therefore, there is a chance a school adopting such an approach might not be challenged without a particularly fastidious Ofsted inspection.

Perhaps the most significant gap in the policy, therefore, is not its intent, but its execution, which has resulted in professionals asking for more guidance. Schools currently use a range of methods: confiscation, lockers, locked pouches, or behavioural rules. These approaches carry costs – financial, logistical, and in how they affect relationships between staff and pupils. Sector leaders have already pointed to the need for funding to support secure storage systems. Enforcement, too, remains ambiguous.

A legal requirement does not eliminate the day-to-day realities of managing compliance. This includes managing pupils concealing devices, disputes with parents, uneven application across staff and varying support from senior leaders around classroom discipline.

Facing pressure

The government had previously resisted calls for a statutory ban, arguing it was unnecessary. The new announcement appears to have been driven less by new evidence and more by political pressure in the House of Lords and from campaign groups.

There is a broader cultural push toward restriction, whether school phone bans or proposals for wider social media limits. Some countries have already put social media bans in place, although their effectiveness remains to be seen.

Banning phones in classrooms is not, in itself, particularly controversial. Many schools have done so for years with little fuss. What is new is not the ban, but the decision to legislate it.

That shift tells us less about phones and more about the current policy climate: one in which guidance becomes law, discretion becomes compliance, and familiar practices are recast as solutions to increasingly expansive problems.

Andy Phippen 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. Ban on phones in schools: support for headteachers or unnecessary legislation? – https://theconversation.com/ban-on-phones-in-schools-support-for-headteachers-or-unnecessary-legislation-281249

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Janina Steinmetz, Professor in Marketing, Bayes Business School, City St George’s, University of London

Duolingo recently revealed a seemingly genius trick to assess candidates for a senior position. Hiring managers at the language-learning app read applications and cover letters, scheduled phone interviews and asked all the usual questions about skills and ambitions. But they also found out about how the candidates behaved in the taxi ride to the interview – and it cost one candidate a senior position.

The idea behind the recruitment approach is that if someone is rude to a taxi driver, they might be rude at work – especially to those who are junior to them. In the Duolingo case, the candidate ticked lots of boxes for the role. But when the company heard how they treated the driver, the candidate wasn’t offered the job.

This resonates with research that found that people will work hard to make a good impression in a job interview and that these efforts can mask what they are genuinely like.

After all, most people can avoid being rude in a one-off, high-stakes situation. But being friendly at all times can probably only be achieved by those who are genuinely warm people. By assessing people when they are not aware they are being monitored, Duolingo hoped to filter out the truly friendly from those who work hard to fake it.

Duolingo is not the first company to come up with the idea of looking at candidates’ behaviour outside the interview room. Companies look at prospective employees’ social media for exactly the same reason. People might reveal more of their true selves on social media when they don’t know they are being watched by potential employers.

---

Read more:
Putting your CV together? Complete honesty might not be the best policy

---

But from the candidate’s perspective, there are several issues with Duolingo’s taxi driver test. First, it may not be ethical to use behaviour to make a hiring decision that is outside of the candidate’s consent.

Second, it is unclear what a taxi driver is evaluating when they judge a passenger’s behaviour. Maybe someone is nervous about the interview or is stressed because getting to the interview on time on top of their other responsibilities made them rush. Under these circumstances, candidates might seem less friendly than they otherwise would be.

Other candidates might prefer to quietly review their interview notes instead of chatting with the driver. Again, this does not signal a rude person – maybe just an introverted one.

Fake only goes so far

But still, are behaviour tests like these a good idea in principle for a hiring manager?

Research suggests that Duolingo might be going overboard in its efforts to detect those who are faking being friendly to make a good impression. Although people have been shown to use a variety of strategies to impress in job interviews and beyond (flattery or “humblebragging”, for example), my research has found that many of these tactics are not particularly effective.

This is because people can generally see through insincere efforts to make a good impression. For example, people often forget that in job interviews, discussing their hard work will make them relatable and increase their job prospects. This is because people like to discuss their talents and achievements to make themselves seem competent, but they forget that success usually comes from hard work as well. Discussing it actually makes their success stories seem more sincere and relatable.

And the same is true for thanking others and asking the interviewer questions. If a candidate mainly brags about themselves and treats the conversation as a one-way street, no taxi driver test is needed to identify them as a poor candidate.

People are generally not savvy self-presenters who can fake a good impression consistently. A regular job interview with an experienced hiring manager who can ask about the skills they would bring to the organisation should be enough to identify those who just fake being friendly.

As clever as the taxi driver test sounds, a coffee and a chat with the candidate can probably reveal more crucial information to make sure the right person is hired.

Janina Steinmetz 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 Duolingo taxi test – could being rude to the driver cost you your dream job? – https://theconversation.com/the-duolingo-taxi-test-could-being-rude-to-the-driver-cost-you-your-dream-job-280975

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Lang, Senior Lecturer and Programme Leader in Fine Art , University of Lincoln

The shortlist for the Turner prize 2026 brings together four artists whose practices are firmly rooted in sculpture and installation. Their work, in diverse ways, tests how material form can carry political, ecological and symbolic meaning.

This year’s Turner prize jury (chaired by Alex Farquharson, director of Tate Britain) is composed of Sarah Allen (South London Gallery), Joe Hill (Yorkshire Sculpture Park), Sook-Kyung Lee (The Whitworth) and Alona Pardo (Arts Council Collection). They praised the shortlisted artists for their material intelligence and their capacity to link sculptural language to wider systems of power, memory and belief. Here is a round up of this year’s shortlisted artists.

Simeon Barclay: performance, place and British ruin

Simeon Barclay is nominated for The Ruin, shown at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA), London in January 2025 and later at the Hepworth Wakefield in Yorkshire. His work combines performance, sculptural installation, spoken word and live brass music. This combination nods obliquely to the industrial and musical traditions of his Yorkshire upbringing.

Barclay’s practice frequently returns to British national identity as something shaped by labour, landscape and decay. In The Ruin, industrial materials become resonant rather than merely symbolic: scaffolding, sound and breath are choreographed to produce an atmosphere that feels both ceremonial and unstable. The presence of brass instruments (historically tied to civic pride and working-class culture) introduces a solemnity that is repeatedly undermined by fragmentation and collapse.

Barclay’s work stages Britishness as something assembled and disassembled in real time. Spoken language slips between declaration and hesitation, while the sculptural setting refuses to settle into monumentality. It is a practice less concerned with nostalgia than with the ways national identity is continually rehearsed, strained and repaired.

Marguerite Humeau: sculpting belief systems

Marguerite Humeau is nominated for Orisons (2023), originally produced for the Black Cube Nomadic Art Museum, and for her subsequent exhibition Torches at ARKEN Museum in Denmark. Her contribution to the shortlist brings an overtly speculative dimension into dialogue with sculpture.

Humeau’s work often begins with research into non-human intelligence and biological communication systems. In Orisons, a large-scale sculptural elephant emerges as a central figure. However, it is not as an image of wildlife, but a stand-in for matriarchal knowledge and collective memory. Elsewhere in her practice, attention shifts dramatically in scale, from insects and wasps to ecosystems that exceed human comprehension.

The jury highlighted Humeau’s “cinematic” approach, and this is apt. Her installations are immersive, carefully lit and choreographed, producing a sense of narrative without storyline. Yet the work resists being pinned down. Instead, sculpture becomes a speculative tool for imagining belief systems that sit outside rationality: an attempt to materialise what cannot be directly known, only inferred.

Kira Freije: softness, armour and the human figure

Kira Freije is nominated for Unspeak the Chorus, her exhibition at the Hepworth Wakefield in Yorkshire. Her sculptures take the form of life-size hybrid beings – part animal, part human, part automaton – constructed from fabric, metal and aluminium casts taken from her body and the faces of people close to her.

Freije’s work consistently plays hardness against softness. Industrial materials such as aluminium are used not for rigidity, but for their capacity to receive impressions through casting. The results are surfaces that appear armoured yet vulnerable. Faces emerge as partial traces, embedded within bodies that refuse stable identity categories.

These figures don’t dominate space so much as inhabit it uneasily. Suspended between animation and stillness, they suggest forms of collectivity that are fragile, negotiated and embodied. The jury noted her transformation of everyday and industrial materials, but it is the emotional economy of the work – its careful calibration of exposure and defence – that gives it weight.

Tanoa Sasraku: sculpture and petro-politics

Tanoa Sasraku completes the shortlist with Morale Patch, exhibited at the ICA in 2025. Her work looks at oil as a system of power, examining how petro-politics shapes corporate identity, military culture and national symbolism.

In Morale Patch, Sasraku disrupts minimalist sculptural grids by inserting objects laden with meaning: paperweights awarded to mark milestones in oil extraction, flags mounted on crates that evoke pallets or coffins, and repeated references to military terminology. The title points to the symbolic language used to maintain cohesion within structures of extraction and violence.

Sasraku juxtaposes American and Scottish flags, drawing attention to unexpected national entanglements within global energy systems. Sculpture here operates as a critical inventory, cataloguing how abstract economic forces find expression in objects designed to reassure, reward or commemorate.

Sculpture and the institutions that shape it

This year’s prize arrives at a moment when sculpture, funding structures and art education are becoming unusually entangled. For the first time, the prize will be hosted within a university setting, Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art (known as MIMA, part of Teesside University). The Turner prize is run by Tate, an Arts Council England (ACE) National Portfolio Organisation (NPO) – as is MIMA. This means that ACE funds a national prize presented in an ACE-funded space, which also functions as a teaching and research environment.

In recent years, there have been clear connections between funding and nomination with some shortlisted artists holding NPO status. This is a pattern that my research has identified as part of the wider instrumentalisation of British art funding.

Then there are the concerns raised by the Independent Review of Arts Council England’s critical assessment of ACE’s increasing institutionalisation and its sidelining of artistic quality.

Together, these issues raise questions about how closely programming, funding frameworks and art education may begin to mirror one another. Universities, some of which are NPOs or host NPO-adjacent arts centres (as we do at the University of Lincoln), risk reproducing rather than challenging dominant artistic norms.

Yet this year’s shortlist complicates that concern. It’s notably strong on artistic grounds, driven less by identity-led rationales than by a renewed commitment to sculpture as a way of thinking about power, ecology and belief.

Marguerite Humeau stands out as a possible winner. Her work exemplifies a post-postmodern sensibility shaped by new materialist thought: sculpture no longer represents the world so much as participates in it, modelling forms of non-human intelligence and agency through matter itself.

Humeau’s ability to combine speculative research with rigorous fabrication gives her work both intellectual ambition and genuine aesthetic appeal. These are qualities that suggest the Turner Prize, for all its institutional entanglements, still has the capacity to reward artistic excellence.

An exhibition of the shortlisted work will open at Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art (MIMA) on September 26 2026.

Martin Lang 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. Turner prize 2026 shortlist points to sculpture as a way of thinking about power, ecology and belief – https://theconversation.com/turner-prize-2026-shortlist-points-to-sculpture-as-a-way-of-thinking-about-power-ecology-and-belief-281368

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lukas Slothuus, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Global Studies, University of Sussex

In 2022, Sweden took a rare step: the country banned all fossil fuel production.

The quirk is that Sweden has never actually produced any fossil fuels. So why would a country with no fossil fuel production decide to ban such production?

In a newly published study, I explain the curious case of this ban – and how it boosted Sweden’s reputation as a global leader on climate issues.

Sweden is often praised for its ambitious climate policies and fast reductions in climate-damaging emissions. Its former centre-left government decided to ban all exploration and extraction of coal, oil and gas just a year after its neighbouring oil and gas producer, Denmark, had done so. This was part of a growing international effort to phase out the supply of fossil fuels.

My research into the Swedish government’s ban comes as more than 50 nations attend a major initiative to develop a roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels, hosted by the Colombian government. I interviewed 17 high-profile people in Swedish climate politics, including some of the main architects of the ban.

I found that a single driver can play a decisive role. The ban was largely the result of a concerted effort by the Green party, which had campaigned on this issue for several years and already included it in its national election manifesto in 2014.

The Green party called on the Swedish Geological Survey to conduct a study on the potential effects of a ban, which provided the necessary scientific basis. It then used its proposal as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the Social Democrats, when forming a coalition government after the 2018 election.

That study showed how much easier it is to implement new climate policy when there is no strong fossil fuel industry and associated lobbying. And because the government had already banned uranium mining in Sweden in an attempt to make future nuclear power production more difficult, it had a blueprint for how to ban fossil fuel extraction.

The ban was mostly symbolic – but it may also have helped prevent future fossil fuel production in Sweden. Technological advances and exploding oil and gas prices can make previously untenable resources attractive to exploit. That would, of course, have harmful consequences for the climate, so the ban does have a material dimension.

In contributing to global momentum against fossil fuels, the ban bolstered Sweden’s reputation as a leading country in climate negotiations. This proved important: several of my interviewees pointed out how Sweden was able to push the EU toward a more ambitious position in its Fit For 55 climate package – a set of laws aiming to cut the EU’s emissions by 55% by 2030 – in part due to the respect the country commands from others on decarbonisation.

Following the ban, Sweden also joined the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance of like-minded countries and regions working to encourage other countries to join the global movement for a phaseout.

The path to transition

Colombia’s government is now hosting the first global conference on the transition away from fossil fuels in collaboration with the Dutch government, in the city of Santa Marta.

Located on Colombia’s sun-kissed Caribbean coast, Santa Marta is at the heart of the country’s vast coal industry. As one of the world’s largest coal exporting countries, as well as a major oil and gas producer, the symbolism is clear: Colombia is not just talking the talk but walking the walk.

More than 50 countries including the UK, Brazil and Norway are gathering to agree a roadmap for the transition away from fossil fuels. This comes only months after the UN’s climate summit Cop30 in Brazil, where nations failed to agree to end reliance on fossil fuels and negotiations faltered in the face of powerful fossil fuel lobbying.

Rather than let laggards like the US or Saudi Arabia obstruct negotiations, this conference brings together a “coalition of the willing”. Ahead of it, experts are laying the scientific and academic foundations for the political need for a phaseout. My colleagues and I are presenting our research into the failures and successes of first-moving countries trying to phase out fossil fuel production.

The following questions will be at the heart of discussions in Colombia.
What kind of financing do developing countries need to phase out their production and consumption of fossil fuels? How can the legal obstacles be overcome? What does a just, equitable and fair phaseout look like? And crucially, what can be learned from existing attempts to phase out fossil fuels?

In Sweden, climate policies have been gradually rolled back by its current rightwing government, which is not sending any representatives to Santa Marta. Yet the fossil fuel ban still stands.

Sweden’s ban did not lead to any direct reduction in global fossil fuel production. But it did name the problem and show the way for other countries. It provided an alternative pathway where future investment goes into renewables and green technologies, rather than climate-damaging energy sources.

Now it’s up to the countries attending the Santa Marta conference to make further progress on this long, difficult path to transitioning away from fossil fuels.

Lukas Slothuus receives funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

– ref. Why Sweden’s ban on fossil fuel production matters, despite not producing any itself – new research – https://theconversation.com/why-swedens-ban-on-fossil-fuel-production-matters-despite-not-producing-any-itself-new-research-280399

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Fannie Frederikke Baden, PhD Candidate, Art History and Visual Studies, Lund University

Can we ever really understand Chernobyl? As a researcher in visual culture, I find myself returning to this question again and again as I examine films, TV shows, documentaries, visual novels and artworks.

We know that the explosion occurred on April 26 1986 at 1:23am due to a safety test gone wrong, and that the radioactive contamination spread across the exclusion zone and far beyond, reaching other parts of Europe. Beyond these facts, however, things get shaky. Although the official death toll was, according to the World Health Organization’s 2005 report, less than 50, the real number is considered to be much higher, with thousands affected by the long-term consequences of exposure.

Radioactive contamination is what made this technological disaster so extraordinary. While many people may not be interested in decay chains or wavelengths, popular culture renders radioactive pollution immediately legible.

At the same time, these representations often operate in the space between historical fact and dramatisation. Although many can be criticised for exaggerating an already fantastical disaster, that dramatisation is also part of what keeps audiences engaged and ensures that Chernobyl remains alive in our cultural awareness.

Here are five of my favourite pop culture depictions of the Chernobyl disaster, that I believe give a pretty good glimpse of what the disaster entailed.

1. Chernobyl (2019)

This series is one of the best ways to understand or be introduced to Chernobyl. Over the course of five episodes, HBO’s drama series brought viewers through the social, political and bureaucratic aspects of the disaster.

Following the scientist Valery Legasov (Jared Harris), as well as the story of firefighter’s wife Lyudmilla Ignatenko (Jessie Buckley), the series does a great job at narrating the disaster in compelling ways. It is visually well constructed with attention to every minor detail.

The series finds ingenious ways to visualise invisible radiation, while scientists’ struggle to force the truth into the open is heart-wrenching enough to hold the viewer through all five episodes.

2. Chernobylite (2021)

The horror indie video game Chernobylite allows players to wander freely around Chernobyl’s exclusion zone – one of the most radioactively contaminated areas on Earth.

With time and climate change, the structures and buildings within the zone are at increasing risk of disappearing from both wildfires or age that leaves buildings crumbling. In an effort to preserve the zone, the creators of Chernobylite began to 3D scan it. Left with a virtual map, they decided to turn their project into a video game.

In Chernobylite, players can roam freely and uncover the mystery of the zone. Although embellished with green glowing crystals and monsters, the game does offer a setting that allows you to walk around and experience the zone while scientists tell you information about the disaster.

This game is a wonderful way to experience the zone at a distance. It is photo-realistic and allows the players to really locate some of the famous landmarks of the zone (such as the Ferris wheel or the monument for the firefighters).

3. Chernobyl Abyss (2021)

This Russian disaster film follows fictional firefighter, Alexey Karpushin (Danila Kozlovsky) through some of the challenges in the immediate aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster.

To save his son from radiation poisoning, Karpushin agrees to become a “liquidator” in exchange for having him sent to a care facility in Switzerland. Around 600,000 military personnel were drafted as liquidators – sent to high-radiation zones (often wearing inadequate protection) to clear radioactive debris and manage contaminated waste.

While it’s not a perfect film, it gives a good impression of the emotional and individual toll of the disaster.

4. The Babushkas of Chernobyl (2015)

Amid the tragic and often action-driven representations of Chernobyl, this documentary feels hopeful rather than bleak. It portrays life in the exclusion zone (some people have returned to live on their generational land) in all its complexity.

More importantly, it’s a reminder that while the zone may be reduced to a story for those of us watching from afar, for the people who live there, it remains a home.

5. YouTube

Before the escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian war in 2022, the zone was frequently visited. In fact, after the release of HBO’s Chernobyl series, tourism allegedly increased by 40%.

In a space where souvenirs like a stone from the ground are illegal to pick up, many instead captured the zone through their camera lens. Viewing videos from tourists and “stalkers” (illegal explorers) on YouTube, offers one of the best ways to gain insights into how the Chernobyl disaster has affected the land.

Many of these tourists capture the samoesely (resettlers), wildlife and guides who talk about the zone and what the disaster means to them.

Fannie Frederikke Baden received funding from Lund University.

– ref. Chernobyl: the five best things to watch and play to understand the disaster – https://theconversation.com/chernobyl-the-five-best-things-to-watch-and-play-to-understand-the-disaster-281176

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Bamo Nouri, Honorary Research Fellow, Department of International Politics, City St George’s, University of London

Let’s begin with a simple question that rarely gets a straight answer: what would victory over Iran actually look like? In Washington and Jerusalem, the answers tend to sound definitive: eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability, break its regional power, perhaps even force political change at the top. It’s the language of decisive war, the kind with a clear endpoint.

But shift the perspective to Tehran, and the definition changes completely. Victory, for Iran, is survival. That asymmetry shapes the entire conflict. In wars like this, the side that needs less to claim success often has the advantage – and, right now, Iran needs far less.

There is no denying the military imbalance. The US and Israel can strike with extraordinary precision and reach. They have demonstrated that repeatedly – targeting infrastructure, leadership and strategic assets.

But tactical success has yet to translate into political outcome. Iran’s state hasn’t fractured. Its governing system remains intact, and its networks – military, regional, ideological – continue to function. Even its most sensitive capabilities, including nuclear expertise, remain resilient.

The deeper miscalculation lies in assuming Tehran is playing the same game as Washington. It isn’t. Iran is not trying to defeat the US or Israel outright. It is trying to outlast them, complicate their objectives and raise the cost of progress until it becomes unsustainable.

This logic is visible in how the conflict has unfolded. The battlefield extends beyond direct confrontation into shipping lanes, energy markets and regional alliances. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz are not incidental – they are pressure points with global consequences.

Iran’s strategy is not about dominance but entanglement. It doesn’t need battlefield superiority if it can draw its adversaries into a conflict that is too costly to resolve and too complex to conclude.

When wars stall, the instinct is to escalate: more bombing, strikes on energy infrastructure, even, in extremis, “boots on the ground”. The assumption is that more force will finally produce a different outcome.

But Iran is not a passive target. It has already shown a willingness to retaliate across the region, including against Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, as well as targets in Jordan and Iraq. Strikes on Iran’s energy systems would not stay contained – they would invite retaliation against these same states, widening the conflict.

There is another constraint: American is estimated to have already used up around 45% to 50% of key missile stockpiles, including roughly 30% of its Tomahawk missile inventory. So the stark reality is that escalation is no longer just about willingness, but capacity — and in any wider war, the question may not be how far the US can go, but how much it has left.

The consequences would also extend beyond the battlefield. Iran’s response would be sustained attacks on neighbouring countries, on their power, fuel, and water systems, rendering parts of the region increasingly unlivable as temperatures soar over summer. Huge numbers of people would be forced to leave, risking another large-scale displacement crisis.

Even then, the core reality remains unchanged. Iran is built for endurance – any ground campaign would likely become prolonged and attritional. More importantly, escalation misses the point – the problem is not a lack of force, but the absence of a political objective that force can realistically achieve.

Compounding the problem is a quieter but equally significant reality; the US and Israel do not appear to be fully aligned in their end goals. Israel’s posture suggests a pursuit of maximal outcomes – deep, possibly irreversible weakening of Iran’s system, if not outright regime collapse. The US, by contrast, appears to oscillate between coercion, containment and negotiation.

These are not just differences in emphasis – they are differences in strategy. Wars fought without a shared definition of victory rarely produce victory at all. What they produce instead is sustained military activity without strategic convergence – constant movement, but little progress toward resolution.

No conclusion in sight

At some point, it becomes necessary to describe things as they are. This is no longer a war moving toward a decisive conclusion. It is a conflict settling into a pattern – strikes followed by pauses, ceasefires that hold just long enough to prevent collapse, and negotiations that advance just enough to avoid failure.

And those ceasefires tell their own story. Their repeated extension reflects not progress, but constraint. Washington, under Donald Trump, has strong incentives to keep talks alive, avoid deeper escalation, and end the war sooner rather than later. The alternatives – regional war or global economic shock – are far harder to manage. That dynamic gives Tehran leverage. It does not need to concede quickly when delay itself strengthens its position.

Time, in this sense, is not neutral. The longer the conflict drags on, the more it intersects with the most sensitive pressure points of the global economy. Energy markets are stressed, with supply routes under strain and reserves tightening. Industries that depend on stable fuel flows – aviation, shipping, manufacturing – are increasingly exposed.

What began as a regional conflict has morphed into systemic risk. Even limited disruption can ripple outward, affecting prices, supply chains and political stability. The longer the stalemate persists, the greater the cumulative strain and the closer it edges toward a broader economic shock.

Who really holds the advantage?

In purely military terms, the answer is obvious: the US and Israel retain overwhelming superiority. But wars are not decided by capability alone. They are decided by how goals, costs, and time interact.

In that equation, Iran’s position is stronger than it appears. It has set a lower threshold for success, demonstrated a higher tolerance for prolonged pressure, and shown an ability to impose costs beyond the battlefield. Most importantly, it does not need to win. It only needs to prevent its adversaries from achieving their aims. So far, it has done exactly that.

Which brings us back to the original question: can the US and Israel win this war? If winning means forcing Iran into submission or fundamentally reshaping its strategic posture, the answer is increasingly difficult to avoid – they cannot.

What they can do is continue. Manage the conflict, contain its spread and shape its margins. But that is not victory. It is endurance.

The real danger is not defeat, but the persistence of a belief that just a little more pressure, a little more escalation, or a little more time will produce a different result. If that belief is wrong, then this is not a war on the verge of being won. It is a war that cannot be won at all. A forever war.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Middle East conflict looks increasingly like a war nobody can win – https://theconversation.com/middle-east-conflict-looks-increasingly-like-a-war-nobody-can-win-281253