The working practices of Birmingham's Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies

This article offers a history of the working practices of the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. Based on extensive interviews with former members and on research into a new archive of the Centre, housed in the Cadbury Research Library, University of Birmingham, it argues that cultural studies as practised in the 1970s was always a heterogeneous subject. The CCCS was heavily influenced by the events of 1968 when it tried to develop a new type of radical and collaborative research and teaching agenda. Despite Stuart Hall's efforts to impose a focused link between politics and academic practice, the agenda soon gave way to a series of diverse and fruitful initiatives associated with the ‘sub-groups’ model of research.

Contemporary Studies of the Effectiveness of Social Work

This article is based upon an analysis of 95 experimental, quasi-experimental, preexperimental and client-opinion studies of the effectiveness of social work. Three-quarters of these screened studies show positive results within their different methodological conventions. An examination is made of which methods and patterns of helping are correlated with positive outcomes and the implications for practice, training, and management explored.

Reinforced concrete wall construction formed with OSB:First published use in the United Kingdom and acknowledged by Terry Pawson Architects as the source of inspiration for the internal concrete finish of the 2010 Carlow VISUAL Centre for Contemporary Art.

The artefact was published in the following :

Bennett, D., (October 2007), Architectural Insitu Concrete, RIBA Publishing, London, , ISBN 124-3671-245, pp 101-103

Bennett, D., (2008), Concrete Elegance Four, London, Concrete Centre and RIBA Publishing, pp cover, c, 4, 9-12 & back.

Stacey, Professor M., (2011) Concrete: a studio design guide, London, Concrete Centre and RIBA Publishing, pp74-75.

Sociobiology in turmoil again

Altruism is defined as any behaviour that lowers the Darwinian fitness of the actor while increasing that of the recipient. Such altruism (especially in the form of lifetime sterility exhibited by sterile workers in eusocial insects such as ants, bees, wasps and termites) has long been considered a major difficulty for the theory of natural selection. In the 1960s W. D. Hamilton potentially solved this problem by defining a new measure of fitness that he called inclusive fitness, which also included the effect of an individual's action on the fitness of genetic relatives. This has come to be known as inclusive fitness theory, Hamilton's rule or kin selection. E. O. Wilson almost single-handedly popularized this new approach in the 1970s and thus helped create a large body of new empirical research and a large community of behavioural ecologists and kin selectionists. Adding thrill and drama to our otherwise sombre lives, Wilson is now leading a frontal attack on Hamilton's approach, claiming that the inclusive fitness theory is not as mathematically general as the standard natural selection theory, has led to no additional biological insights and should therefore be abandoned. The world cannot but sit up and take notice.

Science as a hobby: how and why I came to study the social life of an Indian primitively eusocial wasp

For the most part, my research career has involved prying into the life of the locally abundant primitively eusocial paper wasp, Ropalidia marginata, with the aim of understanding the origin and evolution of social life in insects. My interest in this wasp species began as a hobby, but I was privileged to soon convert my hobby into my profession. Here I describe how this conversion came about, what it meant to pursue my hobby as a full-time activity, describe some examples from my research and end with some reflections about the process of doing modern science, especially in India.

How should biologists engage with controversial mathematical theory?

Mathematics is beautiful and precise and often necessary to understand complex biological phenomena. And yet biologists cannot always hope to fully understand the mathematical foundations of the theory they are using or testing. How then should biologists behave when mathematicians themselves are in dispute? Using the on-going controversy over Hamilton's rule as an example, I argue that biologists should be free to treat mathematical theory with a healthy dose of agnosticism. In doing so biologists should equip themselves with a disclaimer that publicly admits that they cannot entirely attest to the veracity of the mathematics underlying the theory they are using or testing. The disclaimer will only help if it is accompanied by three responsibilities - stay bipartisan in a dispute among mathematicians, stay vigilant and help expose dissent among mathematicians, and make the biology larger than the mathematics. I must emphasize that my goal here is not to take sides in the on-going dispute over the mathematical validity of Hamilton's rule, indeed my goal is to argue that we should refrain from taking sides.