When asked to reflect on weeks 4 and 5, my initial thought was "I didn't do that much". Academically, the work slowed down once our group didn't have conferences or tight time deadlines to meet. However, looking back on my calendar, it turns out a lot has happened internally. I will be discussing my experiences concerning

1. General Laidlaw academic matters 
2. A shock and introduction to bias in research
3. Finally solidifying an LiA topic!

There is much to explore, however I will keep things concise and lightly touch on ideas. 

General Laidlaw academic matters
Firstly, I had the privilege of conducting my first interview during week 4 with Deep. Initially, I was just going to transcribe and note down key themes; however, I found myself wanting to explore topics that Jonny (the interviewee) subtly brought up. I enjoyed asking non-scripted questions and being flexible with the process!

It was also extremely encouraging to listen to how much care the teachers had for the children, knowing their names and providing specific and personal examples of each child. It brought to mind the uniqueness of child's situation, and something that must be taken into consideration for not just our character framework, but for all research concerning people. 

Secondly, with an unfortunate six survey responses, we adapted to turn the research into a pilot study. It was a big disappointment for our group who were so driven to produce a proper academic research paper but we got back onto our feet quickly and adapted to produce the best paper within our limits. 

A shock and introduction to bias in research
This leads to something that came as a shock to me, funding producing a stark bias in research. As a child, I used to think of science as this perfect, pure and objective realm of information. However as I progressed throughout my life, I was slowly exposed to the shortcomings of science and the idealistic idea of science I had in my head slowly crumbled down. 

I started going to the longitudinal working group and there, on the table, was the research brief stating that we needed to use Laidlaw's Skills Framework. This came to such a shock to our group as we believed our research project aimed to find the most suitable character framework from literature, and then, through interviews and surveys, adapt it to be context specific. But here was a brief that insisted that the Laidlaw's skills framework should be used, for which our group decided in week 1 that it did not focus on character development and therefore was removed from the table. 

Discussing with Corey, it came to light that there was miscommunication between the central Laidlaw body and the SDG lab in the aim of our research. Our group expressed frustration and, to be frank, I was slightly indignant that the Laidlaw framework must be implemented when, through combing through literature reviews, there were 'better' frameworks that we believe would be the most effective in establishing a rounded character. One group member even mentioned that this would put them off from joining the longitudinal study. 

Earlier this week, our group also discovered the power of funding in research to dictate the type of research being produced. We discovered that this one organisation was responsible for funding many different character research, and although their political background wasn't explicitly stated on their website, it was clear they aimed to embed certain consistent values through funding. 

From the outset, this may seem outrageous, indoctrination even. However, upon further reflection, I believe it is difficult to ever remove bias and beliefs from people. Humans run and dictate everything. My uncle once challenged me by asking "if all bias is removed, won't that takeaway something so fundamental that make us humans?". We are all a collection of lived experiences, and it can be argued that these things are powerful and even necessary for us to be able feel emotions such as empathy: those are the things that drive us to be selfless in nature at times. 

Although I am still unclear on where my stance is, when used in the right idea, I believe that having organisations fund specific ideals, or beliefs, such as climate change or kindness, may not necessarily be a bad thing. To direct research into where we want to progress as a society.

Of course it then it poses the question of "Who gets to decide what is right?" and the further ethics... which is another philosophical question for another day. 

I'd just like to thank Corey for showing so much patience and understanding, but to also share the truth with us. I asked her about her experience with this type of bias in research, and she shared that, linking back to our character research, there always needs to be a balance in virtues, an idea called the "Golden mean" which was introduced to us during the ACE conference. Having an "excess virtue", such as too much integrity, can lead to dogmatism. Too much drive can lead to toxic perfectionism. Too much courage can lead to recklessness. The list goes on. Corey grounded us in helping us consider the 'higher consensus', or what I like to call 'the bigger picture'. Although the path to get to the outcome may not be your ideal way, if the values and end goal is the same, it shouldn't put you off a certain project or job. 

What I discussed in the earlier blogs about our group disagreeing *because* they cared so much for the schools, is a microcosm of this larger subject. We have to think about Laidlaw's main aim, which is to improve education and instill good values for all. Despite the framework not being our preferred one, it is valuable to consider the higher consensus, for which we all agree with. This shapes us to be more empathetic, considerate, and flexible individuals. 

Finding my LiA topic of interest! 

Something that has been on my mind is not having an LiA topic for next summer. I decided that my decision should be based on the cause rather than the place. However I do believe that it would be more valuable to explore a region that I am not so familiar with, to understand the cultural differences. Growing up in Singapore, there were few people from the African countries, and it wasn't until volunteering at the Blackbird Leys Festival that I first tried Afro-Caribbean food. Growing up in a British household but growing up in Asia, I felt I had a decent grasp of both the Western and (very broadly speaking) Asian culture and norms. This directed me into choosing to go to either the Nordic region, South America or African countries as I realised that's where I lacked cultural understanding.

After watching a BBC news video on lithium mining, showcasing its impact on the indigenous people, I was intrigued to further understand how indigenous people were in relation to the land for climate change solutions, as well as being generally interested in their social and economic systems. This was something I had been thinking about before coming to uni!

I discussed this with Ruby-Anne, and she mentioned she had a contact who had worked in Alaska with indigenous people. I am so grateful to Ruby-Anne for always giving up her time to put me in contact with organisations that I am interested in and for providing me with amazing PowerPoint skills!

Although plans aren't set in stone, I am very excited to explore the possibility of working in Alaska next summer!