Category: Research in Focus

Research in Focus

  • ‘More diverse and culturally inclusive’: Post-war immigration and its impact on British culture

    ‘More diverse and culturally inclusive’: Post-war immigration and its impact on British culture

    In this blog, recent BA (Hons) History with Politics graduate Phil Matthews reflects on the impact immigration has had on British culture in the post-Second World War era. Phil, who wrote the blog as part of his assessment for the second year module ‘Working with the Past’, coordinated by Dr Mike Esbester, describes how many aspects of British culture changed as a result of mass immigration into the country in the latter half of the twentieth century. Britain, Phil notes, transformed into a multi-ethnic society and benefitted massively from immigrants bringing their own country’s cultures with them. The twentieth century normalised the multi-cultural society that we live in today, Phil concludes, and also normalised public figures of colour from various different cultural fields. 

    HMT Empire Windrush.
    historyextra.com

     

    Culture involves the characteristics, traits and habits of a group of people. Many aspects of British culture changed as a result of mass immigration into the country in the latter half of the twentieth century. Spencer highlights a massive change in the population demographic due to migration, stating that ‘between 1940 and 1990, communities of Indian subcontinental, Caribbean and African origin have grown from a small fraction of 1% of the total population of Britain to almost 6%’.[1] As a result of immigration, Britain transformed to a multi-ethnic society, thus leading to greater cultural diversity as a result. This blog will emphasize the transformation that multi-culturalism had on several cultural facets, including sport, cuisine, music, and entertainment.

    It would be beneficial to state initially why mass immigration occurred. Britain encouraged mass immigration from the Commonwealth countries after the Second World War via the 1948 British Nationality Act, which was described by Hanson and Desmond as a step towards the ‘world’s most liberal immigration regime’.[2] Britain chose to introduce this legislation due to labour shortages as a result of the war. This led to ‘the consequent creation of new ethnic minority communities in Britain’.[3] Transport systems and other institutions, such as the newly founded NHS, needed staffing. The ‘Windrush generation’ were one such group that came in 1948 to make a new life in Britain. The 1948 Act has been amended many times to tighten up immigration controls, but throughout the twentieth century, Britain saw a migration boom, which later changed British culture in numerous ways.

    Image: John Barnes playing for England. nationalfootballmuseum.com

     

    One cultural aspect that changed massively as a result of immigration and cultural diversity in the twentieth century was sport. Sport became more diverse and culturally inclusive as the century progressed into its latter years. In the 1970s and 1980s, there were not many non-white and foreign players, and it was not welcomed by everyone as racism was rife in football. John Barnes came from Jamaica and emigrated to London with his family aged 12 years. Barnes was only the second black player to play for Liverpool, which led to frequent racial abuse. Bananas were thrown at him even by his own team’s supporters, and he was subject to abuse from opposition supporters and players and club staff. [4]  Football became more tolerant for two reasons. The first reason is anti-racist bodies being set up in the 1990s, including the Commission for Racial Equality, the Professional Footballers Association, the Football Trust and the Football Task Force, which ‘organised or endorsed campaigns such as Kick Racism Out of Football and Show Racism the Red Card’.[5] These organisations helped enforce and punish racist behaviour in football. The second reason is that more foreign and British players of colour feature in the Premier League today. A current example that can be used is Manchester City’s and England’s Raheem Sterling. Sterling moved to London from Jamaica with his parents when he was five years old. He is widely regarded as one of the best players in the Premier League and suffers less racial abuse than John Barnes had to endure. While it is still far from perfect, racism in football has become less frequent since the 1970s and 1980s. This shows how immigration and the cultural diversity that came with immigration changed sporting culture, particularly in football.

    Image taken from Unsplash

     

    Another cultural aspect that changed hugely as a consequence of immigration and cultural diversity is food and cuisine. Food from the countries of migrants, particularly food from the Commonwealth, has been brought and adopted into British culture, for example curries. Increased immigration changed eating habits in Britain. This was partially as a result of the British Empire, but as Panayi argues, the development of cuisine in Britain was most prominent after 1945, because of ‘increasing international trade or the influence of multinational companies’.[6] The influx of immigrants, particularly after the 1948 British Nationality Act, also contributed heavily to this, Panayi notes, arguing that ‘[b]efore 1950 in an age of Total War and before the spread of affluence, concepts of British – as opposed to foreign foods – hardly existed. This situation changed as a result of post-war immigration and brand labelling’.[7] This shows that immigration changed the culture of cuisine, by making British cuisine more varied over the course of the twentieth century.

    Bob Marley
    stockfreeimages.com

     

    A third cultural aspect that varied tremendously as a result of immigration and cultural diversity is music. As multiculturalism became more prominent in Britain, music became more diverse. As Scheding notes, migrants brought ‘their music with them’.[8] One example of music that became prominent in Britain is hip-hop, which originated in the Bronx in the 1970s. It was often provocative and politically powerful. Scheding states that ‘In the UK, rap music transformed from an imitation of US styles in the 1980s to carving out something more unique’.[9] It has become more popular in the twenty-first century too, enjoying ‘a renaissance in the mid-2010s’.[10] Another example of increased cultural integration in British music was the introduction of reggae music from the Caribbean. As Curley notes, Chris Blackwell was the ‘single person most responsible for turning the world on to reggae music.’[11] He founded Island Records in Jamaica in 1958 and returned to England a few years later with Bob Marley, a global figure not just in music, but in popular culture in general. These two examples show how much music varied across the century alongside more cultural integration and immigration.

    In the entertainment industry, there are now more people of colour on the screens to reflect the more multi-cultural society that we live in today. Policies were brought in to make television more diverse, such as public service broadcasting which ‘included recruitment measures, targets and specialist slots and multicultural departments’.[12] Some entertainment companies sought to reflect the increasing cultural diversity in Britain, such as the BBC, which had ‘separate African-Caribbean and Asian Program Units for a period’.[13] This policy was aimed to specifically better Black and Asian representation in the media. This shows increased efforts to be culturally diverse in the entertainment industry, in line with a more multi-cultural society as a result of immigration.

    It is important to note that mass immigration was not supported by everybody in Britain. Toby Skevington notes that at times receptions for immigrants of colour were ‘generally unwelcoming’.[14] Lauren Mclaren also notes that immigration created ‘widespread concern about political and social  community and about social identities’.[15] Hostility and discontent towards mass immigration was prominent in the 1950s amongst some White communities in Britain. This led to disturbances such as race riots occurring in Nottingham and London. Notting Hill of 1958 was an example of a ‘white riot against Notting Hill’s Afro-Caribbean community’.[16] Nine White youths received five-year prison sentences for these acts but this did not change some of the public’s desire to cut immigration. Enoch Powell referred to immigrants as ‘dependents’ in his infamous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in 1968 and called for immigration controls to be tightened.[17]  Some people saw this as racist and hysterical, but others supported what he said which made Powell’s speech extremely divisive. The later years of the twentieth century saw more distancing from the 1948 British Nationality Act, which was extremely inclusive towards migrants coming in.

    Immigration controls were tightened over the course of the twentieth century, and mass immigration was not wholly supported, but this did not change the huge cultural impact that immigrants would have over British culture. Immigrants brought their own country’s cultures with them to Britain, such as sport, cuisine, music and entertainment. The twentieth century normalised the multi-cultural society that we live in today and normalised public figures of colour from various different cultural fields.

     

    Notes

    [1] Ian R G Spencer. 2002. British Immigration Policy since 1939 the Making of Multi-Racial Britain. Routledge.

    [2] Randall Hansen and Desmond King. 2000. “Illiberalism and the New Politics of Asylum: Liberalism’s Dark Side.” The Political Quarterly 71 (4): 396–403.

    [3] David A Coleman. 1987. “U.K. Statistics on Immigration: Development and Limitations.” The International Migration Review 21 (4): 1138–69.

    [4] John Goddard and John O.S. Wilson. 2008. “Racial Discrimination in English Professional Football: Evidence from an Empirical Analysis of Players’ Career Progression.” SSRN Electronic Journal 33 (2).

    [5] Goddard and Wilson. “Racial Discrimination”.

    [6] Panayi Panikos. 2010. Spicing up Britain: The Multicultural History of British Food. London: Reaktion.

    [7] Panikos. Spicing up Britain.

    [8] Florian Scheding. 2018. “‘Who Is British Music?’ Placing Migrants in National Music History.” Twentieth-Century Music 15 (3): 439–92.

    [9] Scheding, “‘Who Is British Music?’”.

    [10] Scheding, “‘Who Is British Music?’”.

    [11] Bob Curley. 2020. “Chris Blackwell on Bob Marley, James Bond and Jamaica.” Caribbean Journal. November 15, 2020.

    [12] Sarita Malik. 2013. “‘Creative Diversity’: UK Public Service Broadcasting after Multiculturalism.” Popular Communication 11 (3): 227–41.

    [13] Malik. “‘Creative Diversity’”.

    [14] Tony Skevington. 2000. “Immigration into the United Kingdom since 1945.” English and American Studies, (35), 95-110.

    [15] Lauren McLaren. 2011. “Immigration and Trust in Politics in Britain.” British Journal of Political Science 42 (1): 163–85.

    [16] Camilla Schofield and Ben Jones. 2019. “‘Whatever Community Is, This Is Not It’: Notting Hill and the Reconstruction of ‘Race’ in Britain after 1958.” Journal of British Studies 58 (1): 142–73.

    [17] Liu and Elliott. 2014. “Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ Speech This Is the Full Text of Enoch Powell’s So-Called ‘Rivers of Blood’ Speech, Which Was Delivered to a Conservative Association Meeting in Birmingham.

  • Bridging the gap between the academic and non-academic worlds: Engaging the public in academic research

    Bridging the gap between the academic and non-academic worlds: Engaging the public in academic research

    In this blog Reiss Sims, who has just gained a first-class degree in History at Portsmouth (well done, Reiss!), discusses a project he worked on last year with some of his fellow History students for the module ‘Working with the Past’, coordinated by Dr Mike Esbester. As part of their project, the students looked into how academic historians take their work ‘out of the academy’ and into the public realm. Reiss and his fellow students interviewed our Dr Karl Bell, who researches all things supernatural, to find out how he has tried to engage the wider public in the history he studies.

    Last year, as part of our assessment for the second-year module ‘Working with the Past’, I and some of my fellow students interviewed tutors in the History team to find out how important they thought it was for academic historians to engage with the wider public. In this blog we reflect on our discussion with Dr Karl Bell – Reader in History at the University of Portsmouth. Karl was happy to take a step back from his busy schedule of all things supernatural, to give us an insight into what history he studies, why and how public engagement is valuable, and why the walls between academic and public history should be broken down.

    The role of the historian has often been a topic of high debate. Traditionally, it was an occupation designed for the academic elite, serving to tell the stories of the extraordinary and powerful. Then, due to a rise in cultural and social scholarship during the mid-twentieth century, the historian’s role shifted towards becoming a more public-facing figure; bridging the gap between the academic and non-academic worlds by exploring the ‘ordinary’ and ‘normal’. As a result, concern as to whether historians should, or should not, engage with wider society still penetrates historical discussion – should history be read by the many, or by the few? Are all academics public intellectuals, or private? What is the use of history for non-historians? These are just some of the questions that intellectuals, such as Edward Said, have tried to answer, suggesting “there is no such thing as a private intellectual, since the moment you set down words and then publish them you have entered the public world”.[1] Nevertheless, our interview with Karl highlighted some of the ways in which he understands the relationship between history, the historian, and the public.

    The public-facing historian is a philosophy that is echoed by Karl, whose research primarily focuses on supernatural beliefs, magical practices, folklore, and urban legends of the late eighteenth and early twentieth century. When asked what attracted him to his specific field of history, Karl suggested that he is “attracted to areas of our historical cultures and experiences that have tended to be overlooked or underappreciated”, and that by studying such areas, society can develop an enhanced understanding of how people lived in the past.[2] In addition, Karl believed that the academic and public spheres share differing perceptions of what history is, with much of the public perception focusing on “momentous historical events – political and military history.”[3] All of this counts towards the suggestion that interaction with the public can be achieved by varying the histories we choose to tell. For example, by studying the supernatural, Karl aims to provide the public with a “personal way of connecting back to similar such beliefs of the past” and thus making it more relatable, whilst also broadening their understanding of the possibilities of historical study.[4]

    Whilst public lectures, seminars, and events are quite frequently used by historians to engage with the public in an intimate environment, television and radio can be quite the step up, allowing the historian to reach a national, and sometimes global, audience. In 2020, Karl made an appearance on Channel 4’s British history show Britain’s Most Historic Towns, discussing the role of Portsmouth and the Royal Dockyard during the Napoleonic Wars. Karl’s task was to take the complex subject of nineteenth-century Europe, without a script or time to go into immense detail, in order to make the show’s topic easily accessible to a wider audience. It is plausible to assume that the audience of the show could very well be made up of people with, and without, historical interest, making Karl’s job even more significant.

    In his work, British historian Donald Watt has reaffirmed some of the points made by Karl, regarding the relationship between the historian and television. In an article titled, History on the Public Screen, Watt indicated that whilst the reception of history by the public may largely be the same, the historian’s style of working must adapt. Unlike in seminars, lectures, or webinars, television is ultimately concerned with entertainment, not total accuracy, and so the historian must attempt to make themselves, and their topic, clear and digestible.[5] In doing so, they are able to prevent distortion or misrepresentation of a particular topic. If kept in mind, Karl and many other historians have the ability to tackle the ‘classroom’ perception of “history”, by bringing it to life, and in doing so, has the power to encourage nationwide appeal.

    The work of a historian, no matter the medium in which it is recorded, can have a substantial impact on society for decades. Be it a new school of thought, a unique interpretation of an historical topic, or work in Hollywood, the historical legacy left behind can be extremely powerful. When asked about what legacy he would like to leave with the public, Karl indicated that he wanted to continue spreading the message that history is not “owned” by historians, and that it is not a topic that is constrained to the limitations of the school curriculum. It is clear then, that Karl’s objective as a historian is not just successful research, but to encourage the wider public to explore and engage with history more freely. Hopefully, in doing so, a new generation of historians will emerge.

    Notes

    [1] Maurice St. Pierre, “Eric Williams: The historian as public intellectual,” Journal of Labor and Society 23, no. 1 (March 2020): 71.

    [2] Karl Bell, “Working with the Past Interview,” interview by Reiss Sims, Daniel Squire, Sophie Sinclair, and Joshua Wintle, March 21, 2021, 1

    [3] Bell, interview.

    [4] Bell, interview.

    [5] Donald Watt, “History on the public screen I,” In The Historian and Film, ed. Paul Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 169.

  • Differential fees for overseas students

    Differential fees for overseas students

    In this new post, Senior Lecturer Jodi Burkett shares a podcast in which she discusses a chapter she has written for the edited collection The Break-up of Greater Britain (MUP, 2021). Jodi’s research focuses on the cultural and social impacts of the end of the British Empire, with a particular focus on national movements like the National Union of Students, and in this podcast she reveals how the different fees charged to overseas students caused significant anger among the student community in the late-1960s.

    Increasing tuition fees for University students has been a way for governments to save money since, at least, the late 1960s. While most students didn’t have to pay their tuition fees until the late 1990s (the Local Education Authority paid these fees for most students), this was not the case for those coming to study in the UK from abroad.

    In 1967 the British government, for the first time, decided that international students (or overseas students as they were then known) should pay more for their tuition fees than ‘home’ students. In 1966 all students were charged £70 tuition fees, but from 1967 it was £70 for ‘home’ students and £250 for overseas students on undergraduate courses. 

    There are many reasons why the government took this decision. But the decision, and the debates that surrounded it, tell us a lot about the changing nature of Britain’s world role and, particularly, how Britain was relating to former colonies and the Commonwealth. One key area of discussion around this decision was what sort of ‘responsibility’ Britain had for students from former colonies. Education was seen as an important way for Britain to look after these countries, to maintain economic and cultural links with them and ensure lasting relationships after empire.

    My chapter, ‘Boundaries of belonging: differential fees for overseas students in Britain, c. 1967’ (in the book The Break-Up of Greater Britain edited by Chistrian D. Pedersen and Stuart Ward published by Manchester University Press in 2021) explores how we can see Britain grappling with the end of empire through the prism of fees for overseas students. 

    I discussed this chapter, including how these issues fit into student politics and political activism at the time, with Michael Donnay on the recent podcast for the History of Education Society. Have a listen here!

  • What’s in a name?: Etymology of Istanbul through the Ages

    On Wednesday 9 February Dr Gemma Masson (University of Birmingham) presented a paper in our History Research seminar series on the history of the development and changes to the name of the city of Istanbul.  As well as explaining the constructions of these names, the paper placed developments in the city’s name within the context of their times.
    A mural in the Istanbul Archaeology Museums depicting the walls of the Byzantine capital in the 14-15th centuries..
    A mural in the Istanbul Archaeology Museums depicting the walls of the Byzantine capital in the 14-15th centuries.
    If you missed the paper, a recording can be viewed here.  You will need to input the password 2yqXH4S+.
  • ‘An hour or two of welcome relaxation’: The cinema business in wartime Britain

    ‘An hour or two of welcome relaxation’: The cinema business in wartime Britain

    On 12 January 2022 our own Dr Rob James, Senior Lecturer in Cultural and Social History, presented at the first History research seminar of the new year (Happy New Year everyone!) with a thought-provoking paper on the effect of world war on the cinema trade in Britain. If you missed the paper, the recording is available here (you will need to the password Q64&W$?2).

    In the seminar, Rob discussed how, during both the First and Second World War, the film industry was faced with a wide range of challenges that, in the worst-case scenario, threatened its continued existence. Rob explained that cinema trade personnel responded to the challenging wartime circumstances by calling on legislators to support the industry against cuts to staffing and materials, defending the trade against critics who believed that going to the cinema was a frivolous activity that didn’t have a place in wartime, and promoting the pastime as beneficial to the war effort. Rob demonstrated how cinema operators championed the pastime’s benefits as a propaganda source, entertainment medium, and economic commodity in order to protect it and ensure that cinema-goers could continue to enjoy their ‘hour or two of welcome relaxation’ when they needed it.

     

     

  • Don’t lose your head – surviving a dissertation on King Charles I’s killers

    Don’t lose your head – surviving a dissertation on King Charles I’s killers

    Below, one of last year’s third-year students, Alex Symonds, gives some timely advice on how to survive writing your dissertation.  Alex’s dissertation was entitled “‘Cruel Necessity’: Understanding the Influences on the Commissioners in the Trial of Charles I”.  As Alex’s supervisor, I knew she had it in her to do very well, but my mouth dropped to floor once I began reading her work.  The dissertation was very bold in its arguments with an original central focus on humanising the regicides, as well as those chosen commissioners who chose not to sign the death warrant, who have been far less studied. Alex developed some sophisticated arguments around the role of religion in motivating individuals, the fact that several potential signees in the military were otherwise engaged preserving the uneasy peace, the concern of lawyers over the legality of the trial, and the worry amongst aldermen about how signing would look to their constituents.  Alex’s handling of the extensive historiography on the subject was particularly strong, as was her fluid writing style, and the way she structured, signposted and referenced.  Part of the problem for Alex was that she had chosen such an enormous (and enormously important) topic.  Luckily for us, Alex has decided to expand her research for an MRes with the UoP.  – Fiona McCall

    This is a longer blog post, but I think this subject deserves the time, both to tell you why I’m worth listening to and not just another patronising voice, and to give you some genuinely helpful candid advice that should make you feel less alone. I can’t give you subject specific advice, but I can tell you what I needed to hear when I found myself barely surviving my dissertation.

    Firstly, much like yourself dear reader, my dissertation process couldn’t have been more different from what I’d spent three years imagining. After a nightmarish final year, I found myself two weeks away from the final deferral deadline with absolutely nothing written but a failed draft of my first chapter, which despite containing some useful feedback I could only view as a haunting failure, a reminder of everything I had done wrong.

    I nearly gave up. The academic year had gone wrong at every turn, and by this stage I truly felt like all I was doing was prolonging my inevitable failure, and stopping now would give me that sweet relief of a break that I so desperately needed. I was so mentally low and burnt out that redoing an entire year felt like less of a mountain than carrying on for two weeks. And for one day I stopped, had a breakdown and gave up, before realising that I’d spend every day this way if I didn’t try, and my efforts would solidify my feelings of my failure being inevitable rather than potentially my fault. So I picked myself up and decided to try.

    A broadside of 1829 commemorating the martyrdom of Charles I includes portraits of those responsible, the scenes of the trial and execution, and a reproduction of the death warrant.
    A broadside of 1829 commemorating the martyrdom of Charles I includes the scenes of the trial and execution, a reproduction of the death warrant, and portraits of the trial judge John Bradshaw, the regicides Oliver Cromwell and his son-in-law Henry Ireton, and parliamentary general Sir Thomas Fairfax, who famously chose not to attend the trial or sign the death warrant.

    And I got it done. Against the odds I finished proofreading about two hours before the deadline, realised I’d forgotten a glossary and panicked, frantically wrote said glossary and submitted with an hour left. Against even more odds I earned a first on that dissertation, and while I cannot promise you that you’ll achieve that same grade as you drag yourself across the finish line – I can promise you that you can reach that finish line, and it is so worth it. The delayed gratification of that break is bliss, and the release from the crippling self-doubt that I’m sure you’ve been battling is worth it.

    My hope for this blog post is that it will motivate just one person that finds themselves in the shoes I found myself in: utterly hopeless, devoid of motivation, finding every piece of advice patronising because they weren’t the ones in this situation.

    I have worn those shoes, and therefore here is my advice for surviving your dissertation, in no particular order:

    1. You are not a failure. This is less advice and more of a reminder, but I know you need to hear it. You have not let anyone down. Even if you don’t get it done and do need to redo, you are not a failure. You are human, things go wrong, and we learn; if worse comes to worst, you can use this experience to do better next time. You are not a failure.
    2. Break it down into as small chunks as possible. I knew I had fourteen days (thirteen minus my breakdown day), giving myself three days per chapter, one day for an introduction, one day for a conclusion, one day for referencing (more on this later), and 1 day for a buffer. This already made it feel significantly less scary, my 3000 word essays from the rest of the year typically took three days to write, and my chapters were shorter than that – and just like that the impossible task became possible. I broke the content of these chapters down further, 750 words a day discussing one of the main themes of that chapter; a significantly smaller mountain. Make that mountain as small as you can for yourself.
    3. Stick to your schedule. It’s hard to, but if you’re going to break it down into chunks you have to stick to them, unfortunately you don’t have time for endlessly editing. Finish the section and move on, the last thing you need is further panic because you’ve fallen off of your stable lifeline of a schedule. Working a buffer day into your schedule will make this easier; don’t plan to be flawless.
    4. Lower your standards and focus on getting it done. I know, it’s easy for me to say because I got a first, but believe me I was not aiming for one. Aim to submit something, anything, so you can say that you are done. Once you take the pressure off of yourself that high quality writing will come naturally to you. You will hit your daily word goal far quicker than you realise, giving you a feeling of success that I am sure you need, and you can focus on quality from there. Do not give yourself the self-doubt of aiming for perfection with every word.
    5. Re-read the criteria. I’m sure you think you know exactly what is expected of you. I did too, and then on my final re-read before submitting realised I forgot a glossary. That was extra stress that I didn’t need, and could have easily avoided by double checking the criteria.
    6.  Do not underestimate referencing. Giving myself a day for my referencing was the best decision I made; I needed every minute of that day. If you’ve been able to submit more of the ‘optional’ draft deadlines you might need less time as your footnotes and bibliography might be more in order – but my bibliography was non-existent and my footnotes were scribbles. Do not leave it to the last minute, the last thing you want is to finish your dissertation but be capped at 50 because you didn’t reference. I strongly recommend doing your referencing on a day you’re feeling less up for writing content, it’s monotonous enough that it provides somewhat of a mental break while still making huge progress.
    7. Reach out for help. I’m sure you’ve been putting off admitting that you need help, but I strongly recommend finally swallowing your pride. I’m sure you’ve had the Student Welfare team recommended to you before and you’ve convinced yourself into not accepting their help; they are wonderful people who will help you think rationally in this panicked time. Additionally, ask someone to help you proof-read; having another set of eyes read your work before your supervisor will help you catch silly mistakes and validate that your work is good. Swallowing your pride is worth it.
    8.  Get up and fight. You have worked too hard to give up now. It is never too late to try. Look at your previous grades: they are proof that you can do this and you are more capable than you realise. You might not feel like it right now, but your degree is worth fighting for. You are worth fighting for.

    Good luck. You’ve got this. I promise it will be worth it in the end. You can survive your dissertation.

    If you would like to contact me for advice, please feel free to do so: UP895045@myport.ac.uk.

    If you are you are interested in reading about a dissertation which took a different perspective on King Charles I, read about Connor Scott-Butcher’s dissertation here.