Main Panel A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Ross Paul Cameron Curriculum Vitae
Ross Paul Cameron Curriculum Vitae Areas of Specialisation Metaphysics (esp. time, modality, ontology, truth, composition, persistence, metametaphysics, indeterminacy, vagueness, metaphysics of aesthetics) Areas of Competence Formal and Philosophical Logic Aesthetics Philosophy of Religion Epistemology Education Ph.D. Jan 2006, Arché, University of St Andrews. Thesis title: The Source of Modal Truth. Supervised by Prof. Crispin Wright MPhil, University of Glasgow, 2002 (Distinction) MA, University of Glasgow, 2001 (First class honours) Employment August 2014 - present: Associate Professor in Philosophy (with tenure), University of Virginia August 2009 - August 2014: Associate Professor in Philosophy, University of Leeds September 2006 - August 2009: Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Leeds August 2005 - September 2006: Research Fellow in Metaphysics, University of Leeds Honorary Positions Since December 2009: Associate Fellow, Northern Institute of Philosophy March 2006 – Feb 2011: Associate Fellow, Arché, University of St Andrews and Honorary Research Fellow, University of St Andrews Publications Books The Moving Spotlight: An Essay on Time and Ontology, Oxford University Press, forthcoming (estimated publication, Aug 2015) The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics, edited with Robin Le Poidevin, Peter Simons and Andrew McGonigal, Routledge, 2009 Papers 'Improve your thought experiments overnight with Speculative Fiction!', forthcoming in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Vol. 39, special issue on Science Fiction and Philosophy ‘Truthmakers’, forthcoming in The Oxford Handbook of Truth, edited by Michael Glanzberg, Oxford University Press 'Parts Generate The Whole, But They Are Not Identical To It', in Composition as Identity, edited by Donald Baxter and Aaron Cotnoir, Oxford University Press, p90-107, (2014) 'On the lack of direction in Rayo's The Construction of Logical Space', Inquiry Vol. -
OPEN LETTER to the University of Liverpool Concerning Threatened Redundancies of Academic Staff
You can't edit this document directly. To sign please use the form linked below the letter. OPEN LETTER to the University of Liverpool concerning threatened redundancies of academic staff In January the University of Liverpool announced 47 redundancies of academic staff. These staff were identified by grant income and citation metrics and sent letters notifying them they had been targeted for redundancies without the opportunity to review the criteria or the specific information held about them. The University has not made allowance for individual circumstances such as workload or sickness which might have affected these metrics, nor has it given any indication of any meaningful plans to make allowance for such factors. The University used a narrow time window over which to calculate these fluctuating metrics, and a proprietary citation metric tool from Elsevier to arrive at field-weighted citation metrics which are, as a consequence, opaque and difficult to review for appropriateness. We write as members of the wider academic community - researchers who collaborate with the University of Liverpool on grants and papers, who read and cite work from Liverpool, examine PhD students, review courses, attend conferences with colleagues from the University of Liverpool. We are dismayed by the University of Liverpool’s actions, which can only have a chilling effect on UK research. Our belief is not just that the redundancies are financially unnecessary and apparently illegal, nor just that they are fundamentally callous and unfair to deploy against staff who have received consistently positive annual appraisals and have been working harder than ever during a global pandemic. -
BPA Willetts 12.7.10
British Philosophical Association [email protected] www.bpa.ac.uk PHILOSOPHY, IMPACT AND THE RESEARCH EXCELLENCE FRAMEWORK 22 July 2010 Dear Mr Willetts I am writing to you on behalf of the British Philosophical Association, 16 UK philosophical learned societies, and the heads of 41 UK philosophy departments concerning the proposal to use the social and economic impact of research as a basis for determining quality-related research (QR) funding, as part of the Research Excellence Framework. OUR OPPOSITION TO THE ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT We believe, of course, that the money provided by the taxpayer for philosophical research should be put to good use, and we therefore think it would be entirely appropriate for the government to expect us to be able to justify our view that that money is indeed being well spent. However, we very strongly believe that the greatest benefits of philosophical research to society at large cannot meaningfully be measured over short periods of time or at the level of individual researchers or groups of researchers within a particular institution. We are therefore strongly opposed to the proposed ‘impact’ element of the REF. We would also like to point out that we do not see philosophy as being distinctive in this regard. HEFCE claimed (in their ‘Summary of responses’, March 2010) that the consultation on the REF proposals revealed ‘widespread acceptance or support’ for the assessment of impact. We believe that this claim is misleading. Many respondents from across the academic spectrum ‘accepted’ the assessment of impact because they had been told explicitly (for example by David Sweeney at a meeting at the British Academy in October last year for representatives of learned societies and subject associations in arts, humanities and social sciences) President: Director: Membership queries: Prof. -
Main Panel D
MAIN PANEL D Sub-panel 25: Area Studies Sub-panel 26: Modern Languages and Linguistics Sub-panel 27: English Language and Literature Sub-panel 28: History Sub-panel 29: Classics Sub-panel 30: Philosophy Sub-panel 31: Theology and Religious Studies Sub-panel 32: Art and Design: History, Practice and Theory Sub-panel 33: Music, Drama, Dance, Performing Arts, Film and Screen Studies Sub-panel 34: Communication, Cultural and Media Studies, Library and Information Management Where required, specialist advisers have been appointed to the REF sub-panels to provide advice to the REF sub-panels on outputs in languages other than English, and / or English-language outputs in specialist areas, that the panel is otherwise unable to assess. This may include outputs containing a substantial amount of code, notation or technical terminology analogous to another language In addition to these appointments, specialist advisers will be appointed for the assessment of classified case studies and are not included in the list of appointments. Main Panel D Main Panel D Chair Professor Dinah Birch University of Liverpool Deputy Chair Professor Maria Delgado The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, University of London Members Mr William Blair National Museums NI Ms Victoria Brignell BBC Professor Maeve Conrick University College Dublin Professor Kate Flint University of Southern California Ms Vivien Niblett Independent Ms Jacqueline Norton Oxford University Press Professor Wen-chin Ouyang* SOAS, University of London Professor Joanne Tompkins University -
ECU's Athena SWAN Charter Awards Ceremony November 2016 Great
ECU’s Athena SWAN Charter Awards Ceremony November 2016 Great Hall, Imperial College London 19 July 2017 Equality Challenge Unit’s (ECU’s) Athena SWAN Charter was % established in 2005 to encourage and recognise commitment 69.8 to advancing the careers of women in science, technology, overall success rate engineering, maths and medicine (STEMM). In May 2015 the Charter was expanded to recognise work % undertaken in arts, humanities, social sciences, business and 67.5 law (AHSSBL), and in professional and support roles, and for Introduction pre-May success rate trans staff and students. The Charter now recognises work undertaken to address gender equality more broadly, and % not just barriers to progression that affect women. 70.5 We are delighted to celebrate the 118 successful awards post-May success rate today. It is the culmination of many months work for institutions and departments, and for ECU as well. We held 44 assessment panels in total, and would like to thank the 209 118 panellists from across the sector for taking part. award winners Fourteen institutions and 104 departments have gained Athena SWAN awards this round. This is the third awards round where institutions and departments have been able to apply for recognition of their work in AHSSBL, alongside 83 STEMM disciplines, and we were delighted to see the number bronze awards of applications using the new criteria. There was a 70 per cent success rate using the new criteria, which is up from 62 per cent in the previous awards round. 34 We would to thank the Imperial College London for hosting silver awards this awards ceremony.