Oh did you want 3300 words from me on today's IOC sex testing rules? An essay on the nature of evidence and why we can't seem to stop getting stuck in the same traps around sex and gender in sports? Wow lucky you!! www.coyotemedia.org/the-olympics...
Me too! Thank you for all your comments and support with it!
Do we understand the politics of this kind of cost-shock inflation (and the policies that might help address it)? I think not so much: www.annualreviews.org/content/jour...
😮
Nice things to remember about the UK. I am not myself a UK doomer, I think there are plenty of good things about the country and our present state of affairs, and this well captures some of them.
adamcorlett.com/2025/11/30/d...
2025 has been a rotten year for most early career postdoctoral researchers, especially in Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences.
For a better 2026, check out (or repost) this short thread on a free resource for UK-based SHAPE PhDs within 10 years (excluding career breaks) of the doctorate. 1/3
Logo of the British Journal of Political Science displayed in white text on a green background.
A huge thank you to the authors who contributed to Volume 55, our first year of continuous publication.
If you're logged into @bsky.app, our 2025 authors on Bluesky can be found here - https://cup.org/4oLdTRR
If you are on Bluesky and we have missed you, let us know.
🎈 All the best for 2026! 🎈
My wish for 2026 is that politicians and political analysts realize that public opinion is endogenous to elite behavior, that polling single issues tells us nothing about electorally successful strategies, that politics means shaping public opinion and that popularism is the death of progressivism.
Private detective, snore.
So narrowly missed being a Scholar, amateur adventurer and alethiometer reader
One of my favourite papers from this past year!
Thoughts and prayers
Bravo! As deserved as it gets. Wendy Carlin is a treasure.
@carotorreblanca.bsky.social , Will Dinneen, and my paper entitled "Political Science Under Pressure: Competition and Collaboration in a Growing Discipline, 2003-2023" has been (conditionally) accepted at @poppublicsphere.bsky.social.
This paper has been a labor of love. osf.io/preprints/os...
good news is also a thing in the world
For those who believe that the Commons should fairly represent the nation it serves, this is a story of remarkable progress. Those who would deny full and equal rights to people based on the race and religion natually don't see it that way, but thankfully they are a small (if noisy) minority.
This image highlights that one of the most important perks of the job is working with @alanrenwick.bsky.social
Not a drill - there's a Britain-focused lectureship (FT, permanent) available.
www.jobs.ac.uk/job/DPQ588/l...
Overall, housing is a central and growing cleavage in politics, challenging class dealignment story. Relying on occupation risks mischaracterising the class basis of politics - we must update how we think about this to reflect era of asset-based capitalism
7/7
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Happy to see the first paper from @joshgoddard98.bsky.social ’s PhD project published today! 🙌
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Class voting is alive and well, once we recognise the importance of asset (housing) ownership as well as labour market position as a class marker
Sandel’s thesis is a different version of this: politics under neoliberalism* vacated the space of morality (incl. religious community); people want morality in politics; aggressive far right moral panics filled the void
*shorthand for vibes/era, not nec scholarly/intellectual position
This question is less on my personal radar and I think other people will have more information interest in judging
Note: it’s not like there are any things that would flag/trigger an immediate desk reject! This is (was) just one that I think often correlated with overall thinking the paper’s not quite ready, or not quite rightly targeted
all very new and impressionistic but the main one is that I think a “flag” ~a year ago would be to fail to articulate any explicit argument for the paper’s importance or innovation. now those *forms* are almost always present, and it’s deeper work to separate the substantive from the specious
speaking just for myself: trying to do this, but the numerical increase hits hard here too. Also “flags” for desk rejection are changing, in ways which also increase the editorial time required to reach each DR decision. No call for sympathy but it’s not trivial at the ed stage either.
Also: sorry!
We'll have to go back to studying history and institutions don't we. Even elites, Lord help us. Like in the Dark Ages.
100%!!!
Strong agree, but worry about the degree to which this prescription comes from a place of relative privilege, ex ante, and survivor bias, ex post.
Maybe more universal: be good and be lucky, and if you can only pick one, be lucky
Congratulations!
100% correct response
