Author Archives: B Merritt

Mindfulness Meditation Training

This post was contributed by Lucia Magis-Weinberg, who is doing her PhD under the supervision of Dr Dumontheil and Dr Custers, investigating how motivation impacts adolescents’ executive functions (which include self-regulation and attention). Learn more about Dr Dumontheils’ research. Follow us on Twitter @idumontheil and @luciamawe

PsychologyInhale. Exhale. Focus your attention on the present moment. Mindfulness meditation (MM) is a type of awareness that involves focusing on moment to moment experiences in a non-judgmental and non-reactive way. MM was adopted from the Buddhist tradition, and was originally implemented in Western medicine for the treatment of chronic intractable pain. In adults, it has been shown to improve people’s ability to manage attention, regulate emotion, well-being, and ameliorate anxiety and depression. It even boosts immune function. But can these benefits be extended to other age groups?

This was discussed as part of the Birkbeck Science Week by Dr Iroise Dumontheil from the Department of Psychological Sciences, who talked about her ongoing research on the effects of mindfulness meditation training (MMT) in adolescence. The teenage years are characterised by continued improvements in self-regulation, the ability to exert voluntary control on thought, emotion and action. A deficit in self-regulation results in impaired impulse control and increased sensation seeking and risk taking. Furthermore, adolescents can struggle with the regulation of emotions. Failures in self-regulation can have a bigger impact in decisions and behaviour in the teenage years than later in life, as is evident by the alarmingly high rates of death by accidents and violence, two preventable issues, in the second decade of life. Around 75% of mental disorders have an onset before the age of 24. All of these issues could benefit from enhancing the ability of adolescents to self-regulate. Can MMT be one of the ways? Dr Dumontheil’s ongoing research, conducted in collaboration with UCL and the University of Minnesota, is starting to address this question and is motivated by the impact that interventions could have on adolescent well-being.

There is some initial promise from early research in the adolescent population. It has been shown that MMT is feasible in adolescence, particularly because it could be done in schools. MMT seems to benefit performance in tasks that involve a negative emotional component (being less distracted by angry faces, for example). Additionally, there is evidence that anxiety is decreased. The positive effects of MMT on increased attentional control are similar to those seen previously in adult studies.

Currently, Dr Dumontheil is looking at changes in brain function in response to an 8-week MMT with fMRI, a neuroimaging technique. In adults, it has been shown previously that MMT reinforces self- regulation by targeting the ability to control thought and action (associated with increased activity in the prefrontal regions of the brain) and lessening the influence of anxiety, stress and immediate reactivity (associated with decreased activity in the amygdala). Preliminary data from Dr Dumontheil’s research show changes in the brain regions that control attention.

As was noted by attendees of the lecture, there are very interesting questions yet to be explored, such as gender differences in the response to MMT and whether variants of the standard MMT may be more successful in adolescents and children. While research in psychology and neuroscience shed light on this interesting phenomenon, let’s reorient our attention to our present moment for now. Inhale. Exhale.

Guided tour of the William Morris Gallery and discussion with local east London arts organisations (East London in Flux IV)

Session 3. Wednesday 18 June, 6pm-9pm

This post was contributed by Nick Edwards, an Architectural Educator and Co-founder of Fundamental Architectural Inclusion

Morris_Strawberry_Thief_1883_detail

Strawberry Thief printed textile designed by William Morris. (Identification from Linda Parry, William Morris Textiles, New York, Viking Press, 1983, p155)

After an informative guided tour of the William Morris Gallery we retired to the tea room for refreshments and some great conversations around a very loose topic: “What would William Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement – with their commitment to social change via art, have made of the rapidly changing East London and its current wave of arts-led regeneration projects?”.

Group discussions covered East London’s rapid regeneration and how the arts and artists seem to be – perhaps rather unwittingly – part of the process of change. We talked about all sorts of issues and ideas, including the sudden new wave of Open Workshops in East London and how these seem to be funded by through regeneration such as the Mayor of London’s Outer London Fund, London Legacy Development Corporation and sometimes even developers.

Black Horse Work Shop in Walthmanstow

Black Horse Work Shop in Walthmanstow

We also debated the long-term phenomenon of the gradual drift Eastwards of artists, often to run-down short-term studio spaces in ex-industrial areas and now out into much wider surrounding neighbourhoods. Grayson Perry rather succinctly captured this pioneering in his R4 Reith Lecture “If you think of artists, we’re like the shock troops of gentrification…“ going on to say that he thought developers should pay artists to do their work for them!

The participants, a broad range of local people and representatives from arts organisations and the Gallery, threw these issues around the houses and gallery so to speak, ending up with the scourge of house prices again which seems to be a recurring theme at our sessions! There was a bit of a sense that although regeneration and beautification of areas can be beneficial, it also pushes prices up and out of the reach of many people who live and work in East London and that this has a knock on effect on older children becoming independent and on the wider community as a whole. Some people also felt that some of the new creative spaces were far too expensive and not really aimed at local people.

Having drawn somewhat of a blank with these big issues and as to whether there is a present day William Morris we all tried hard to think of solutions and good examples of arts and regeneration projects that had somehow overcome these economic and top down sometimes prescriptive pressures. Were there any examples where the ideas had genuinely come from within the community?

A few of the participants, including Anna Mason and Ines Pina from the Gallery had been to the Mill and spoke very highly of its community-led ethos. Perhaps this type of model is the way forward? Unfortunately Mo Gallaccio from the Mill was unable to join us but we look forward to visiting and learning more about this model in the future. Another very effective grass-roots initiative is Up Your Street, which has the simple but ambitious goal of getting local people out to all the free events offered across the Olympic boroughs. We have Up Your Street to thank for steering many long-term East London residents to our East London in Flux events, where they have made invaluable contributions to our discussions and debates.

East London In Flux is a partnership between Fundamental Architectural Inclusion and Birkbeck.

Further events in the East London in Flux series will be taking place throughout the summer. Tickets are free but places are limited so if you are interested in attending please reserve you place here.

The following are links to some of the other projects we considered  during our discussion:

How much money do you need to be happy at work?

This post was contributed by Natalie Nezhati.

Footballers like Suarez may earn over £100,000 a week but studies show this might not be enough to make a person happy.

Footballer Ashley Cole was famously mortified at Arsenal’s offer of a £55,000 weekly salary. Demanding no less than £60,000, Cole’s angry response made for some horrified headlines. But as comically obnoxious and out of touch his reaction might seem, it makes perfect sense from an economic point of view.

Income is a relative value explained lecturer David Tross of Birkbeck’s Department of Geography, Environment and Development Studies, at a public talk at Birkbeck’s Pop-Up University in Leytonstone Library last week. It is determined by those we spend most time with: our peers, colleagues, family. Associating with obscenely wealthy sportsmen and frequenting the most exclusive nightclubs means that Cole’s point of reference will differ from yours or mine. Just as Warren Buffett’s will differ from that of the unfortunate toilet attendant who found herself on the wrong side of Cheryl that night.

Research finds we’re happiest when earning an equivalent or superior income to others within our peer group. Better then to be a top earner in an unexceptionally paid job than a millionaire amongst billionaires. Though if you want to put a figure on happiness, many agree that £50,000 is about the sum to aim for. That’s annual salary before tax, in case you were wondering.

At this figure, you can feel secure that your basic meets will be met with a little leftover to cover the odd trip to somewhere sunny. Earning above this amount won’t make you very much happier as the law of diminishing returns kicks in. So if you’re already earning £50,000 you now have permission from science to unplug your Blackberry next weekend and take that extra half hour at lunch, secure in the knowledge that any future payrise will make little difference to your overall happiness quotient.

For those of us yet to reach the all-important 50k, there’s still (scientific) reason to be cheerful. According to the ‘hedonic treadmill’ theory, additional pay won’t affect happiness levels too much because after a short-lived kick from the extra cash, you’ll simply adjust to the new level of income and return to your baseline level of happiness. So unless you’re living in real poverty that much sought after payrise shouldn’t make too much difference.

The trouble is we’re all shockingly deluded about what will make us happy. Research finds we’re consistently poor at ‘affective forecasting’ or predicting our future emotional state. As a consequence, we’re likely to overestimate the positive effect that a payrise will have on our overall wellbeing.

Rather than chasing the cash, David Tross suggests taking a less superficial approach and choosing meaningful work that matches your values. Life’s too short to be spent as a frustrated florist working as a tax advisor. Focus instead on what you enjoy and use your wages to buy experiences rather than things because studies prove that this makes people happier.

The message for Suarez and co. is clear: fewer Ferraris and more visits home to mum. Failing this, consider a move to Denmark or Columbia where people are comparatively very happy indeed. If this doesn’t appeal, just relax and wait it out. Statistically, people aged between 65 and 74 are the happiest of us all.

Related links:

Bloomsbury Humanitarian Debates

This post was contributed by Anna Marry, Communications Manager, LIDC. It originally appeared on the LIDC blog.

Inter-collegiate, interdisciplinary events are always a pleasure to go to, and not only because of LIDC’s focus on interdisciplinary research in international development working with five Bloomsbury Colleges. That particular approach often unearths issues that would not have been unearthed otherwise, and bringing together academics with the NGO community and policy-makers makes such events even more stimulating.

The Bloomsbury Humanitarian Debate in June was no different. Organised for the fifth time by two LIDC member colleges: Birkbeck and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and their partner Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF), this series of events explores various issues in the humanitarian sector using a debate format with academic and non-academic experts.

The June event was on resilience in the humanitarian sector. The panel included speakers from MSF, Humanitarian Outcomes, University of Bristol and University of Cambridge. The audience was mostly composed of humanitarian experts themselves, including policy-makers and donors.

Sandrine Tiller from MSF argued that focusing on resilience undermines necessary short-term responses to humanitarian crises. She pointed out that merely surviving is not the same as coping – we often think that people in crisis, for example in Somalia, are resilient, while in fact they are just staying alive.

Paul Harvey from Humanitarian Outcomes disagreed with that view, claiming that resilience was in fact just a new repackaging of an old concept. Resilience is not necessarily anti-relief and can be very helpful. Instead of criticising resilience as a concept and hair-splitting over semantics, one should focus on specific things that work or do not work in short- and long-term responses to humanitarian crises.

akers at humanitarian debateProfessor Mark Duffield from Bristol University reiterated the view that resilience was not a new concept. According to the expert, the aid industry reinvents itself every few years and now the Holy Grail seems to be resilience. The speaker pointed out a dangerous trend in disaster relief, which he called ‘digital humanitarianism’ – private sector companies boiling down disaster responses to technical fixes. After all, buying an app that tells you how to avoid flooding or pollution, is not going to solve the fundamental issue of the risk of floods or polluted air and water.

The fourth speaker, Professor Virginia Murray from Cambridge University, defended the concept of resilience, drawing on her experience working with inter-governmental disaster risk reduction processes. She argued that resilience is crucial for those high-level international forums, as it resonates well and is easy to translate.

The discussion that followed raised interesting issues such as:

Is local civil society key to resilience?

While resilience seems to be a fairly clear concept when applied to natural disasters, what role does it have in conflict?

Does focus on resilience detract donor funding from humanitarian responses?

Saving lives today versus saving lives tomorrow – does one occur at the expense of the other?

Is it the role of NGOs to engage in state-building, or should they focus on short-term relief efforts?

It was fascinating to listen to the arguments both for and against. The debate made me wonder, however, if the contention is not in fact over definitions rather than the actual concept. After all, few would argue against humanitarian aid in crisis, where saving lives is an absolute priority, and few would completely rule out development efforts that have a chance of preventing crises in the long run. As with many things in life, it may be a question of balancing one with the other. Whether we use the term ‘resilience’ or not, is another matter. It may be safer to think of another term that stirs less controversy.

Either way, I will be watching this space and looking forward to the next Bloomsbury Humanitarian Debate. Earlier this spring LIDC launched its new Working Group on Humanitarian Crisis that brings together academics interested in conflict and natural disaster from across Bloomsbury Colleges. A few weeks ago LIDC awarded one of its annual Fellowship grants to Dr. Tejendra Pherali from the Institute of Education and  Dr. Karl Blanchet from London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine to explore the educational and health response to the Syrian refugee crisis in Jordan and Turkey.

Humanitarianism is certainly a very potent area for interdisciplinary, inter-institutional research to explore.