hahahaha oh my god am i seriously having to explain how a simple graphic works to an engineer.
You're the one who pulled in ROI, I was simply pointing out its meaningless. More so if there is no clear linkage.
My alarm clock goes off, the sun rises, the govt should like fund me a bazillion pounds a year to wind up my clock so farmers can make 500% ROI by like growing shit n stuff thanks to the sun and me.
Junk data and junk analysis makes for junk results swallowed up whole by dummies like you.
My alarm clock goes off, the sun rises, the govt should like fund me a bazillion pounds a year to wind up my clock so farmers can make 500% ROI by like growing shit n stuff thanks to the sun and me.
Junk data and junk analysis makes for junk results swallowed up whole by dummies like you.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-05-08 05:04:21)
Fuck Israel
Where does it say it relates to funding proposals in the arts/humanities? It doesn't.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
great job being able to read an information graphic. the image shows that those are the two main sides considering funding proposals in the arts/humanities. a research proposal has to satisfy both 'sides' - it has to be academically valid and have impact in the economy/society. otherwise it DOESN'T GET THE MONEY.
The title is 'Pathways to Impact', and there are no pathways between 'Academic Impacts' and 'Economic and Societal Impacts'.
I think you're projecting what you want to see, when in fact it proves my point.
Fuck Israel
that image is taken from the arts and humanities research council website. it's an explanation of their 'impact' criterion. every single piece of academic research to ever be given money in the UK has to pass both sides of that coin. every. single. one. "where does it say it relates to funding proposals in the arts/humanities"? jesus christ how dense can you be. where do you think i got the image from? tesco's website?
and lol, "it doesn't join up". HAHAHA. the whole point of the image is meant to show that a piece of work is meant to satisfy two sorts of criteria at once, in order to get funded. what fucking sense does it make to have the individual criteria conceptually tie-in? WHAT AM I EVEN READING. you really are getting this stuck on the fact a graphic doesn't join a few lines together? HA HA HA. what difference does it make if every piece of funded research ticks all of the relevant criteria? you're getting upset that they're not co-relating the criteria themselves?
and lol, "it doesn't join up". HAHAHA. the whole point of the image is meant to show that a piece of work is meant to satisfy two sorts of criteria at once, in order to get funded. what fucking sense does it make to have the individual criteria conceptually tie-in? WHAT AM I EVEN READING. you really are getting this stuck on the fact a graphic doesn't join a few lines together? HA HA HA. what difference does it make if every piece of funded research ticks all of the relevant criteria? you're getting upset that they're not co-relating the criteria themselves?
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-08 05:13:36)
i see you read the report's methodology very assiduously.Dilbert_X wrote:
You're the one who pulled in ROI, I was simply pointing out its meaningless. More so if there is no clear linkage.
My alarm clock goes off, the sun rises, the govt should like fund me a bazillion pounds a year to wind up my clock so farmers can make 500% ROI by like growing shit n stuff thanks to the sun and me.
Junk data and junk analysis makes for junk results swallowed up whole by dummies like you.
not.
talking shite. okay. jog on then.
The report was very one sided, it didn't look at the tourism benefits of any other industry - eg how much London landmarks cost to maintain and how many tourists they pull in - and used the inflated 'data' to create a single ROI figure which is meaningless without proving linkage to govt spending or any other 'ROI' figure to compare it with.
How many tourists visit to see the grave of Karl Marx? Pretty great ROI there, if you include meals, hotels, taxis etc.
So yeah, its a crap report really, paid for by the arts council to justify its own existence, no likely bias there at all.
And if you post a graphic with a clear heading which you expect to mean something else then you need a little more training in presentation.
How many tourists visit to see the grave of Karl Marx? Pretty great ROI there, if you include meals, hotels, taxis etc.
So yeah, its a crap report really, paid for by the arts council to justify its own existence, no likely bias there at all.
And if you post a graphic with a clear heading which you expect to mean something else then you need a little more training in presentation.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-05-08 05:22:12)
Fuck Israel
which i expect to mean something else? what the fuck are you talking about? you asked how arts and humanities research is 'useful'. i said all funded research has a criterion that actually is precisely concerned with its 'usefulness', both in terrms of academia/intellectual relevancy, and its 'use' to wider society (and the economic benefit). i just posted a graphic that expands upon and explains, in visual detail, how that 'impact' or 'usefulness' criterion is constituted. now you come back saying i am trying to "present something which i expect to mean something else". LOL.
as for training in presentation: dilderp! oh my, the individual criteria aren't joined together!!!!!! it's invalid!
"hello there, i'm looking to buy a large black handbag, do you have any in stock?"
NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN, THE CONCEPTS OF BLACK AND LARGENESS HAVE NO INNATE RELATION. INVALID INVALID.
as for training in presentation: dilderp! oh my, the individual criteria aren't joined together!!!!!! it's invalid!
"hello there, i'm looking to buy a large black handbag, do you have any in stock?"
NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN, THE CONCEPTS OF BLACK AND LARGENESS HAVE NO INNATE RELATION. INVALID INVALID.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-08 05:25:56)
and yes, the arts and humanities council employed an independent board of economists to do an analysis on their own institutional efficiency/effectiveness. i bet that sort of self-funding is really unheard of. i'm sure no organizations ever hire in an external body or auditor to review their business and organisational practices. that never happens. extremely suspect. i mean, they even paid for it themselves! must be bias.
face it: you're talking shit. you'd be complaining even more if the government or some other public money was spent doing the review. you have a dumb bias, you'll argue til you're blue in the face to make some philistine point. it's boring. nothing is ever good enough for you, because ultimately your own narrow-minded reality is the final limit to your horizon. you are pathetic.[...] an independent report commissioned by the Arts Council and conducted by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR).
The report uses a methodology applied regularly by the Office for National Statistics and recognised by leading economists, and is the first comprehensive analysis to determine this value to the modern economy on a national scale.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-08 05:31:22)
You didn't say anything like that, you just posted a graphic with no source or explanation and went on about ROI.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i said all funded research has a criterion that actually is precisely concerned with its 'usefulness', both in terrms of academia/intellectual relevancy, and its 'use' to wider society (and the economic benefit). i just posted a graphic that expands upon and explains, in visual detail, how that 'impact' or 'usefulness' criterion is constituted.
Fuck Israel
the graphic has its source in the bottom-right corner. i would've figured an engineer could utilize his advanced problem-solving skills to figure out all the little pretty coloured boxes applied to academic funding. and wow, you are dense. it was immediately following your post where you went on about, in your usual manner, (in brackets):
"blablabla worthwhile piece of research blablabla".
so i responded to that part, (in brackets myself [not just an image with no explanation or context, dilbert]), then with that image, which exactly constitutes the research councils' criteria for 'worthwhile' research (or "use", since you use that little shibboleth sometimes too).
THEN i quoted and went on to talk about your ROI point. two points in one post, with a paragraph break separating them. can you deal with that, child? can you serially process information?
"blablabla worthwhile piece of research blablabla".
so i responded to that part, (in brackets myself [not just an image with no explanation or context, dilbert]), then with that image, which exactly constitutes the research councils' criteria for 'worthwhile' research (or "use", since you use that little shibboleth sometimes too).
THEN i quoted and went on to talk about your ROI point. two points in one post, with a paragraph break separating them. can you deal with that, child? can you serially process information?
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-08 05:37:33)
A paid report conducted by a private company, using bunk data, piss-poor extrapolation and nil effort to show correlation or comparison Grade D-, sorry.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
[...] an independent report commissioned by the Arts Council and conducted by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR)
I thought this graphic was interesting though:
How much govt spending is there on retail stores? Pubs? Castles and Historic houses?
What would the corresponding ROI be? How would that compare with arts/culture?
The report is essentially meaningless, sorry.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-05-08 05:46:41)
Fuck Israel
Since the heading was 'Pathways to Impact' it wasn't immediately obvious it was supposed to relate to funding, and you didn't mention it either, so I don't know how you expected me to know thats what was rattling around in your head.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
the graphic has its source in the bottom-right corner. i would've figured an engineer could utilize his advanced problem-solving skills to figure out all the little pretty coloured boxes applied to academic funding
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-05-08 05:45:54)
Fuck Israel
plenty of public money and council funding goes towards getting shopping malls or retail spaces opened/renovated. town centres, pedestrian walkthrough areas, etc. how are you so dense? yes, the majority of pubs/shops are private enterprises, with little to no government spending. but the majority of art and culture is private sector, too. this is comparing public sector spending. why do you have such difficulty with that? public spending is fractional in all of those areas - including arts/culture. it's not as if it's an 'unfair' or 'wild' comparison. the publicly-funded element of all those activities is slight, at best. what matters is that, against charges of being a waste of money/indulgence, the arts/culture spending returns 4x as much to the economy as it takes out. it justifies its (0.1%) annual cost. trying to compare the influence or financial outlay of arts/culture to its private sector, 'mainstream' application is what you call "meaningless".
and the company are used by just about every other government department, for all other large-scale national surveys. not sure why you're bitching about the fact its a private-entity, either. if the government roped in its own government surveyors/analysts to evaluate government spending, then you'd complain even more about 'bias' or 'questionability'. so it's lose/lose really, isn't it. not sure why you really have a problem with it. oh wait, yeah i do, it's because this time it's being used for the arts and culture council, rather than, say, some engineering organization.
and the company are used by just about every other government department, for all other large-scale national surveys. not sure why you're bitching about the fact its a private-entity, either. if the government roped in its own government surveyors/analysts to evaluate government spending, then you'd complain even more about 'bias' or 'questionability'. so it's lose/lose really, isn't it. not sure why you really have a problem with it. oh wait, yeah i do, it's because this time it's being used for the arts and culture council, rather than, say, some engineering organization.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-08 05:47:35)
"wasn't immediately obvious it relates to funding".Dilbert_X wrote:
Since the heading was 'Pathways to Impact' it wasn't immediately obvious it was supposed to relate to funding, and you didn't mention it either, so I don't know how you expected me to know thats what was rattling around in your head.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
the graphic has its source in the bottom-right corner. i would've figured an engineer could utilize his advanced problem-solving skills to figure out all the little pretty coloured boxes applied to academic funding
RESEARCH COUNCILS UK in bottom right corner.
tell me you are trolling. you did a postgraduate degree in the UK, did you not? you never heard of the research councils?
There's no comparison though, in terms of public expenditure, thats the problem.
If that 0.1% could be redirected to something which returned 800% wouldn't that make sense?
If that 0.1% could be redirected to something which returned 800% wouldn't that make sense?
Fuck Israel
sure, but i don't know why you'd quibble over that 0.1% portion going to arts/culture when it's already established that it provides a more substantial return of investment than public spending on many other areas. if maximizing profit and returns is all you're interested in, i mean - which, of course, government spending isn't.
I know what they are, thanks, not the intention of the meaning of that graphic, since the heading said something at polar opposite.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
"wasn't immediately obvious it relates to funding".
RESEARCH COUNCILS UK in bottom right corner.
I know the research councils are OK with funding projects which have solely academic impact, thats been my point for a while, that they produce graphics which show zero linkage between academic or economic/societal impact is interesting no?
Fuck Israel
I didn't post the article, and I'm not quibbling especially, just pointing out the data and report are garbage and can't be used to argue anything.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
sure, but i don't know why you'd quibble over that 0.1% portion going to arts/culture when it's already established that it provides a more substantial return of investment than public spending on many other areas. if maximizing profit and returns is all you're interested in, i mean - which, of course, government spending isn't.
Fuck Israel
you are an IDIOT. plain and simple. jesus fucking christ. NO, the research councils are "not fine funding projects which have solely academic impact". that is precisely the sort of proposal that will not get funding. it has to have 'impact' (or 'use') as well, as defined in the very research proposal. THE WHOLE POINT OF THAT GRAPHIC IS TO SHOW THE EXACT CONTRARY. that graphic, with its two different colours, is meant to show that all funded projects must cover BOTH ASPECTS. no shit you can't form a direct link between forms of academic quality and 'inter-disciplinary appeal' and 'economic benefit'. why does it matter if the actual criteria don't inter-relate? if a piece of work fulfills all criteria, i.e. has academic merit and economic/societal benefit, that's all that matters, no?Dilbert_X wrote:
I know what they are, thanks, not the intention of the meaning of that graphic, since the heading said something at polar opposite.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
"wasn't immediately obvious it relates to funding".
RESEARCH COUNCILS UK in bottom right corner.
I know the research councils are OK with funding projects which have solely academic impact, thats been my point for a while, that they produce graphics which show zero linkage between academic or economic/societal impact is interesting no?
lol "a graphic that shows zero linkage".
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHa.
i am dying. i cannot believe this graphic has to be explained to an engineer. i am bowled over.
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/kei/impacts/Pages … mpact.aspxResearch Councils UK describe impact in the following ways:
Academic impact
The demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to academic advances, across and within disciplines, including significant advances in understanding, methods, theory and application.
Economic and societal impacts
The demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and the economy. Economic and societal impacts embrace all the extremely diverse ways in which research-related knowledge and skills benefit individuals, organisations and nations by:
fostering global economic performance, and specifically the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom,
increasing the effectiveness of public services and policy,
enhancing quality of life, health and creative output.
The Research Councils recognise that the research we fund has both academic, and economic and societal impacts. We also recognise that impacts from research can be generated through a range of diverse pathways, take many forms, become manifest at different stages in the research lifecycle and beyond, and can be promoted in many different ways. This, and the potential complexity and diversity of impacts from research, is reflected within the Research Council assessment and reporting process.
lol
lol
lol
fucking head-meets-desk-palm
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-08 06:14:17)
this thread is now stripping away my will to live
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
hey spark what does this image mean to you?
dilbert is having severe difficulties understanding what a simple graphic represents.
dilbert is having severe difficulties understanding what a simple graphic represents.
well i generally don't work with infographics very often so i'm no expert but i would have thought that the orange-box text describes the academic benefits of research, while the broader economic/social impacts and benefits are described by the green
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
aha! but you notice, there's no lines connecting them!!!!!!! see, the graphic clearly represents by this clearly delineated contrast that academic research is only concerned with academic qualities. i actually trimmed out the key to the image that defines the orange section as 'This Be Our Shit Homies' and the green as 'Lol Wtf This Stuff Is For Losers'.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-08 06:13:09)
hence the will to live comment.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
the broad bar that stretches across BOTH categories at the top saying 'pathways to impact' sure is a confusing element. i'm not sure what its subtle juxtaposition is meant to imply. is it a separate element altogether? is 'pathways to impact' an isolated category-in-itself? i wonder what its putative relation is to the green and orange parts! and why is it purple. well, more of a lavender, really. what does that denote? damn reading diagrams is hard. wish i had taken maths at university...