The design, fabrication and installation of a statue, sculpture, or plaque in the US House of representatives commemorating the people who were injured, died or where killed on Jan 6th is an important undertaking.
Some people, however, may argue that it’s a bad idea erecting a memorial to this event. Or that it depends on certain contextual factors.
Yes, there are other pressing issues in the United States right now like dealing with the remnants of COVID, gun violence, in particular mass shootings in our schools, and climate change.
Critics of this proposal, may suggest that establishing a memorial to the victims of the Jan. 6th insurrection might unnecessarily inflame the MAGA crowd and other right wingers in our country. And we might not want to do this now because tensions are so high.
Many casual observers may also ask, should the memorial include the names of the female Trump supporter who female rioter who was shot by a capital police officer and other rioters who died from heart attacks?
Then again should the memorial be a sculpture, plaque, etc.?
Still some individuals may rightfully ask how are we going to fund this memorial?
All of these issues, however, shouldn’t preclude thoughtful discussions regarding the planning and ultimate decision to go forward with a memorial.
Although we might think that someone else’s preoccupation is silly, we are free to pick and choose and devote our energies to whichever cause or interest we like, as long as it’s not unethical, illegal, and if it is not hurting anyone. And the memorial to the people who died, injured or were victimized as a result of the Jan. 6 insurrection fits this category.
The MAGA crowd are going to complain no matter what the current government does. In other words they don’t need much ammunition to complain about all sorts of real and imagined injustices. So funding and erecting a memorial to the victims of the January 6 attacks will simply be one more issue.
Moreover, if the memorial is located inside a secure (sic) building like congress the likelihood that it will be vandalized is decreased.
Questions regarding what type of memorial, how big it will be, and its’ design and where exactly it should it be placed can be left to another time. But we need to get the ball rolling.
In order to take the financial sting out of the decision, the memorial could be funded (in whole or in part) through private donations enabled via a GoFundMe or kickstarter campaign.
Keep in mind that the victims of the January 6 attacks are not simply the eight people who died during or a result of the attack, but the elected officials and staffers, and law enforcement officers who undoubtedly have experienced post-traumatic stress disorder.
It’s time to move beyond the talking points, and television coverage and concretize the event so that generations from now will be forced to remember its impact on our nation.
Photo Credit:
Brett Davis
Capitol Breach 2
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/50810619993_99a27a23fa_o-scaled.jpg17102560Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-06-20 11:33:172022-06-20 11:33:17How about a memorial to the people who died, were injured, and victimized in the January 6th insurrection?
In any public performance or activity there are always stated and unstated objectives. After a year of hearings, most behind closed doors, last week the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol started to hold their televised public hearings.
This prompts a number of questions, but two of the most important ones are why are the hearings being held in this manner and why now?
To begin with the committee is governed by Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that allows public hearings. But it is up to this body to determine when and how this will occur. And here is now.
The more interesting issues are the stated and unstated reasons for the televised public hearings and the timing of the same.
But keep in mind two things:
First, the committee primarily has a fact finding purpose. It does not have the power to charge any one they believe are conspirators or co-conspirators to the events leading up the January 6, events. But they have subpoena power and have been using it. All the documents and testimony that the committee has collected can and will be handed over to the Department of Justice (DOJ). It will be up to Attorney General Merrick Garland to go forward with any further investigations and DOJ prosecutors to lay charges.
1. Wrapping things up in a bow and provide a more consistent and accessible message to their audience
Over the past year the public has been given snippets of information related to the work of the committee that has been released both by the committee and through the news media. But in the minds of the public this information is a garbled mess and needs to be organized into a narrative so that the public can best understand how the pieces are linked together.
2. Capitalizing on the current attention spans of their audience
This month may be the best time to coherently present the findings of the committee to individuals who are interested in its work. This constituency may have a brief window in their attention spans to better pay attention to the committees’ messaging. Their children have finished (or are completing) the spring semester, and it’s a few weeks before they begin their summer plans if they have any. Meanwhile congress and the senate will go into recess, and legislators will go back to their constituencies and try to convince the uncommitted to vote for them.
3. Appeasing Democratic Party loyalists who have been critical of the process
Over the past year a number of well-respected ostensibly Democratic Party stalwarts, including the Lincoln Project have criticized the committee. The most important criticism has been a perception that the committee is going too slow.
4. Signaling the Department of Justice that they will be holding them accountable for carrying the ball once the information is handed over to them
Once the information gathered by the committee has been given to the DOJ, they cannot simply go through the motions. If they do not do a thorough investigation, lay appropriate criminal charges, and start prosecutions, not only will Garland be criticized but so will Biden. After all, he has the responsibility for managing the DOJ.
5. Stressing the importance of electing Democratic candidates in the upcoming November elections
In five months the United States will ostensibly face one of the most important elections since November 2020. The Dems desperately want to hold on to the seats they have both in the house and the senate and if possible gain a few more seats that are in precarious jurisdictions (ones likely to shift).
For individuals who have been closely monitoring the activities of the committee, the public televised hearings will probably not provide any new revelations, but they should give insights on the inside workings of this political body, and their rhetorical strategy.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2022-06-13-at-10.07.05-AM.png353721Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-06-13 09:03:302024-09-22 12:21:34Why is the Committee to investigate the January 6th attack holding televised hearings now?
Before, during, or after graduate school some academics (including researchers, investigators, and scholars) struggle with determining what questions they want to answer, disciplines they want to contribute to, or what their overall research agenda is or should be. Although this dilemma may continue throughout a scholars’ entire career, making decisions connected to this process is not as simple as outsiders to this task might think.
Some of the choices regarding a research agenda have to do with the type of job and institution scholars or aspiring ones currently study at, work at, or want to get a job at. One of the first decisions is whether the research will be conducted in a private sector setting (e.g., research consulting organization, social media corporation, etc.), or in the context of an institution of higher education. In the former the choice of research subject is pretty much pre-determined by the organization, while in the latter scholars almost always have free reign to choose the subjects they want to explore, and the questions they want to answer.
Thus, one of the issues that researchers must confront is determining which research setting appeals to them the most, and where they believe that they can realistically get a job that will adequately financially support them. Not everyone who earns a Ph.D. can or wants to work in the private sector, nor at an R1 university. Instead they may find employment at a small college or university that may not place a high value on scholarly research.
Another factor that can influence the choice of research agendas are the subject matters and kinds of research, program and mentorship a graduate student or incoming assistant professor is exposed to (e.g., graduate programs in anthropology are not suited for candidates who are interested in conducting chemistry related research). The kinds of research and questions scholars attempt to answer may also be predicated on where they live, work, or visit.
Many graduate programs attempt to provide students with a variety of different courses, and expose them to different research teams so they can ostensibly make their own choices about what suits them bet. Others pair incoming graduate students with supervisors whom they believe share similar research interests, and rarely do students switch to other advisors or mentors.
Many investigators simply continue the research trajectory established by their graduate school supervisor or mentor they worked with. This has an element of predictability. One knows the landscape, the important conferences, and network. It’s a safe environment that minimizes risk.
That being said, it’s often hard to change subject specializations because of a researchers’ beliefs surrounding sunk, start up, and switching costs. But researchers, however, need to ask themselves if conducting research in the area that no longer interests them or that they believe does not assist them, then it may be time to move on.
Then again a scholars’ research agenda may ebb and flow. Certainly the requirements of securing a job, and moving up through the ranks may drive the choice of research a scholar conducts.
Nevertheless, there are at least six interrelated processes that can guide the choice of a research agenda. They include:
1. Serendipity
Sometimes the subjects and questions that researchers choose to focus on are mainly done through chance. For instance, the investigator goes on a vacation, discovers something that interests them, and over time they increasingly conduct research on the subject.
2. Grants driving the process
Alternatively some scholars make decisions regarding the topics and questions they choose to research based on the availability of grant funding. They learn what funding sources are interested in, determine if they have the knowledge and capabilities to receive a grant from the organization, and if it makes sense to them, they craft proposals that they believe the funders will choose. If the research proposal is accepted then they carry out the research to complete the project.
3. The burning question approach
Another motivation driving some researchers are burning questions they want to answer. These questions may be longstanding, based on lived experience, activism, and originated during at an early age in the persons’ life or they emerged after the person was exposed to different life circumstances. In these cases the question is so fascinating that the person is motivated to find answers to the questions beyond what they read through doing a normal literature review. The question may sustains the researchers’ interest for a long time, or there may be a situation/s where the scholar shifts from one question that they are passionate about answering to another.
4. The discipline determines the unanswered questions
Sometimes researchers, after they become familiar with a subject area, start looking for gaps in the literature or knowledge and then try to fill them in. The gaps are discover after the researcher becomes increasingly familiar with the subject matter.
5. A theory drives the process
Most subfields develop hypotheses, theories, and models. These building blocks are tested by analyzing relevant data. Over time new research methods and data are applied to the hypotheses, theories and models to understand the situations that they do or do not apply to.
6. Access to data may drive the process
Data exists in a variety of different forms and are of different levels of quality. Sometimes it is readily accessible (e.g., in an archive), whereas at other times it is not (e.g., nonobservable). Many researchers chose to answer questions based on this availability and quality of the data to which they apply certain tests.
Knowing and understanding that there are about six interrelated processes may help researchers, have a better understanding of the multiple ways they can go about finding appropriate research topics and fields to explore.
Whatever your motivation, it’s important to keep in mind that research agendas can and do change throughout a scholarly career, and this is predicated on the fact or possibility that over time, not only do interests change, but so do motivations surrounding conducting research and opportunities too. As it turns out there is no one best way for researchers to determine questions to answer, fields to explore or a research agenda. The answer is it depends.
Photo credit:
Joel Kramer
gambling
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/391616108_76884105b5_o.jpg15362048Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-06-05 23:47:302022-06-06 16:10:23What’s the best way to choose a research agenda?
How about a memorial to the people who died, were injured, and victimized in the January 6th insurrection?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossI’m not the first person to make this recommendation, and certainly will not be the last. But the January 6th 2021 insurrection, or riots as some would describe them, in particular the numerous law enforcement officers who were injured and the eight people who died in connection with this event, need to memorialized with something more than a year-long House Select Committee, the filing of charges by the Department of Justice, and the conviction of selected participants on seditious conspiracy indictments.
The design, fabrication and installation of a statue, sculpture, or plaque in the US House of representatives commemorating the people who were injured, died or where killed on Jan 6th is an important undertaking.
Some people, however, may argue that it’s a bad idea erecting a memorial to this event. Or that it depends on certain contextual factors.
Yes, there are other pressing issues in the United States right now like dealing with the remnants of COVID, gun violence, in particular mass shootings in our schools, and climate change.
Critics of this proposal, may suggest that establishing a memorial to the victims of the Jan. 6th insurrection might unnecessarily inflame the MAGA crowd and other right wingers in our country. And we might not want to do this now because tensions are so high.
Many casual observers may also ask, should the memorial include the names of the female Trump supporter who female rioter who was shot by a capital police officer and other rioters who died from heart attacks?
Then again should the memorial be a sculpture, plaque, etc.?
Others may opine that the memorial will be vandalized like the litany of ones that were spray painted, wheat-pasted, stickered, and torn down during the spring of 2020 in the wake of the protests against the death of George Floyd and the black lives matter movement in this country.
Still some individuals may rightfully ask how are we going to fund this memorial?
All of these issues, however, shouldn’t preclude thoughtful discussions regarding the planning and ultimate decision to go forward with a memorial.
Although we might think that someone else’s preoccupation is silly, we are free to pick and choose and devote our energies to whichever cause or interest we like, as long as it’s not unethical, illegal, and if it is not hurting anyone. And the memorial to the people who died, injured or were victimized as a result of the Jan. 6 insurrection fits this category.
The MAGA crowd are going to complain no matter what the current government does. In other words they don’t need much ammunition to complain about all sorts of real and imagined injustices. So funding and erecting a memorial to the victims of the January 6 attacks will simply be one more issue.
Moreover, if the memorial is located inside a secure (sic) building like congress the likelihood that it will be vandalized is decreased.
Questions regarding what type of memorial, how big it will be, and its’ design and where exactly it should it be placed can be left to another time. But we need to get the ball rolling.
In order to take the financial sting out of the decision, the memorial could be funded (in whole or in part) through private donations enabled via a GoFundMe or kickstarter campaign.
Keep in mind that the victims of the January 6 attacks are not simply the eight people who died during or a result of the attack, but the elected officials and staffers, and law enforcement officers who undoubtedly have experienced post-traumatic stress disorder.
It’s time to move beyond the talking points, and television coverage and concretize the event so that generations from now will be forced to remember its impact on our nation.
Photo Credit:
Brett Davis
Capitol Breach 2
Why is the Committee to investigate the January 6th attack holding televised hearings now?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossIn any public performance or activity there are always stated and unstated objectives. After a year of hearings, most behind closed doors, last week the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol started to hold their televised public hearings.
This prompts a number of questions, but two of the most important ones are why are the hearings being held in this manner and why now?
To begin with the committee is governed by Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that allows public hearings. But it is up to this body to determine when and how this will occur. And here is now.
The more interesting issues are the stated and unstated reasons for the televised public hearings and the timing of the same.
But keep in mind two things:
First, the committee primarily has a fact finding purpose. It does not have the power to charge any one they believe are conspirators or co-conspirators to the events leading up the January 6, events. But they have subpoena power and have been using it. All the documents and testimony that the committee has collected can and will be handed over to the Department of Justice (DOJ). It will be up to Attorney General Merrick Garland to go forward with any further investigations and DOJ prosecutors to lay charges.
Second, the hearings, regardless of the findings, format and timing, are not going to convince the Maga cult that former President Donald Trump, and his inside circle broke the law. Many of them believe that the “election was stolen,” don’t really understand the constitution, nor criminal law, and a significant number of them believe that the Jan 6th insurrection was a legitimate act of political violence.
Although the committee may be using the televised public hearings to prepare and warn the American public about the seriousness of the information uncovered and recommended criminal charges, having public televised hearings now may be designed with other objectives in mind including:
1. Wrapping things up in a bow and provide a more consistent and accessible message to their audience
Over the past year the public has been given snippets of information related to the work of the committee that has been released both by the committee and through the news media. But in the minds of the public this information is a garbled mess and needs to be organized into a narrative so that the public can best understand how the pieces are linked together.
2. Capitalizing on the current attention spans of their audience
This month may be the best time to coherently present the findings of the committee to individuals who are interested in its work. This constituency may have a brief window in their attention spans to better pay attention to the committees’ messaging. Their children have finished (or are completing) the spring semester, and it’s a few weeks before they begin their summer plans if they have any. Meanwhile congress and the senate will go into recess, and legislators will go back to their constituencies and try to convince the uncommitted to vote for them.
3. Appeasing Democratic Party loyalists who have been critical of the process
Over the past year a number of well-respected ostensibly Democratic Party stalwarts, including the Lincoln Project have criticized the committee. The most important criticism has been a perception that the committee is going too slow.
4. Signaling the Department of Justice that they will be holding them accountable for carrying the ball once the information is handed over to them
Once the information gathered by the committee has been given to the DOJ, they cannot simply go through the motions. If they do not do a thorough investigation, lay appropriate criminal charges, and start prosecutions, not only will Garland be criticized but so will Biden. After all, he has the responsibility for managing the DOJ.
5. Stressing the importance of electing Democratic candidates in the upcoming November elections
In five months the United States will ostensibly face one of the most important elections since November 2020. The Dems desperately want to hold on to the seats they have both in the house and the senate and if possible gain a few more seats that are in precarious jurisdictions (ones likely to shift).
For individuals who have been closely monitoring the activities of the committee, the public televised hearings will probably not provide any new revelations, but they should give insights on the inside workings of this political body, and their rhetorical strategy.
What’s the best way to choose a research agenda?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossBefore, during, or after graduate school some academics (including researchers, investigators, and scholars) struggle with determining what questions they want to answer, disciplines they want to contribute to, or what their overall research agenda is or should be. Although this dilemma may continue throughout a scholars’ entire career, making decisions connected to this process is not as simple as outsiders to this task might think.
Some of the choices regarding a research agenda have to do with the type of job and institution scholars or aspiring ones currently study at, work at, or want to get a job at. One of the first decisions is whether the research will be conducted in a private sector setting (e.g., research consulting organization, social media corporation, etc.), or in the context of an institution of higher education. In the former the choice of research subject is pretty much pre-determined by the organization, while in the latter scholars almost always have free reign to choose the subjects they want to explore, and the questions they want to answer.
Thus, one of the issues that researchers must confront is determining which research setting appeals to them the most, and where they believe that they can realistically get a job that will adequately financially support them. Not everyone who earns a Ph.D. can or wants to work in the private sector, nor at an R1 university. Instead they may find employment at a small college or university that may not place a high value on scholarly research.
Another factor that can influence the choice of research agendas are the subject matters and kinds of research, program and mentorship a graduate student or incoming assistant professor is exposed to (e.g., graduate programs in anthropology are not suited for candidates who are interested in conducting chemistry related research). The kinds of research and questions scholars attempt to answer may also be predicated on where they live, work, or visit.
Many graduate programs attempt to provide students with a variety of different courses, and expose them to different research teams so they can ostensibly make their own choices about what suits them bet. Others pair incoming graduate students with supervisors whom they believe share similar research interests, and rarely do students switch to other advisors or mentors.
Many investigators simply continue the research trajectory established by their graduate school supervisor or mentor they worked with. This has an element of predictability. One knows the landscape, the important conferences, and network. It’s a safe environment that minimizes risk.
That being said, it’s often hard to change subject specializations because of a researchers’ beliefs surrounding sunk, start up, and switching costs. But researchers, however, need to ask themselves if conducting research in the area that no longer interests them or that they believe does not assist them, then it may be time to move on.
Then again a scholars’ research agenda may ebb and flow. Certainly the requirements of securing a job, and moving up through the ranks may drive the choice of research a scholar conducts.
Nevertheless, there are at least six interrelated processes that can guide the choice of a research agenda. They include:
1. Serendipity
Sometimes the subjects and questions that researchers choose to focus on are mainly done through chance. For instance, the investigator goes on a vacation, discovers something that interests them, and over time they increasingly conduct research on the subject.
2. Grants driving the process
Alternatively some scholars make decisions regarding the topics and questions they choose to research based on the availability of grant funding. They learn what funding sources are interested in, determine if they have the knowledge and capabilities to receive a grant from the organization, and if it makes sense to them, they craft proposals that they believe the funders will choose. If the research proposal is accepted then they carry out the research to complete the project.
3. The burning question approach
Another motivation driving some researchers are burning questions they want to answer. These questions may be longstanding, based on lived experience, activism, and originated during at an early age in the persons’ life or they emerged after the person was exposed to different life circumstances. In these cases the question is so fascinating that the person is motivated to find answers to the questions beyond what they read through doing a normal literature review. The question may sustains the researchers’ interest for a long time, or there may be a situation/s where the scholar shifts from one question that they are passionate about answering to another.
4. The discipline determines the unanswered questions
Sometimes researchers, after they become familiar with a subject area, start looking for gaps in the literature or knowledge and then try to fill them in. The gaps are discover after the researcher becomes increasingly familiar with the subject matter.
5. A theory drives the process
Most subfields develop hypotheses, theories, and models. These building blocks are tested by analyzing relevant data. Over time new research methods and data are applied to the hypotheses, theories and models to understand the situations that they do or do not apply to.
6. Access to data may drive the process
Data exists in a variety of different forms and are of different levels of quality. Sometimes it is readily accessible (e.g., in an archive), whereas at other times it is not (e.g., nonobservable). Many researchers chose to answer questions based on this availability and quality of the data to which they apply certain tests.
Knowing and understanding that there are about six interrelated processes may help researchers, have a better understanding of the multiple ways they can go about finding appropriate research topics and fields to explore.
Whatever your motivation, it’s important to keep in mind that research agendas can and do change throughout a scholarly career, and this is predicated on the fact or possibility that over time, not only do interests change, but so do motivations surrounding conducting research and opportunities too. As it turns out there is no one best way for researchers to determine questions to answer, fields to explore or a research agenda. The answer is it depends.
Photo credit:
Joel Kramer
gambling