Pity this is limited to life-course studies: a lot of the same questions about how to think about time apply to other areas of criminology!

Do you happen to know why UCL pays for flu jabs for staff but not COVID boosters? Is the benefit–cost ratio particularly different? Thanks.

👋 I’m very happy to provide details of our programme. Basic information is at: www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-...

As you know, most UK criminology programmes are too narrowly focused on explanations of offender disposition.

This is a slide I use quite a lot when doing POP training for police. Even when an agency or individual wants to follow SARA properly, there are so many institutional pressures on them to skip steps.

In the Swedish police, is the lack of analysis to inform problem solving mainly due to lack of capacity (eg lack of funds), lack of analytical skills/training, lack of understanding of the value of analysis, or something else?

This is a slide I use quite a lot when doing POP training for police. Even when an agency or individual wants to follow SARA properly, there are so many institutional pressures on them to skip steps.

I agree. But on the other hand, when given what should be an easy question, why not just give a positive answer? Voters like politicians who give straight answers, but so often ministers miss opportunities to build a reputation go that by giving straight answers to easy questions.

Good luck with the bid!

Is there a downside to pre-registration? If not, it’s probably worth doing even if the benefits are modest, or only apply in some cases.

So I’m not sure pointing out that some good science has been done without preregistration (or without ethics processes, or open data, or open materials) tells us much. It doesn’t seem relevant to the central question of whether preregistration reduces bias or not.

I haven’t read the full piece, but the argument in the quote seems to be of the form “some good were produced without this” (leaving unsaid “and quite a lot of bad results, too”).

But the argument for pre-registration isn’t that it leads to good results, it’s that it makes results more trustworthy.

👏👏👏 @jolliffesimpson.bsky.social !

Is a man being briefly questioned on the street (but not searched or arrested) “clear evidence of harm”, given your argument that single sources of evidence (eg the NPL report) shouldn’t be relied on, and that in the Thompson case a court hasn’t yet decided if there was any harm at all?

What evidence is there of harms caused by false matches during police use of live facial recognition in the UK?

More evidence is almost always good, but I'd say a controlled experimental study is pretty good evidence, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. But I certainly agree it would be useful for other researchers to replicate or extend the work done by the NPL.

‘The CBI and Universities UK… said universities already subsidised research by £5.4 billion a year, largely through international student income. A levy would "accelerate contraction" in research and innovation, they warned.’
www.thetimes.com/article/95f2...

It’s also worth noting that there’s good evidence that live facial recognition using the alert thresholds used by UK police doesn’t lead to discriminatory outcomes: science.police.uk/site/assets/...

As the next post in the thread says, 63% of people think the UK should maintain or increase the number of international students. Although of course that level of support might be somewhat soft.

bsky.app/profile/sund...