At an early meeting of the British Sociological Association's "Activism in Sociology Forum" members met to discuss how we might play a more campaigning role in the world outside the academy. Pragmatically, academics tend to work long hours. We are faced with multiple and competing demands: teaching, administration, publishing, marketing, research, grant-bidding, and so on. The REF has ramped up the requirement to demonstrate the efficacy of our research in "the real world" (our impact upon society, economy, and culture rather than upon knowledge per se, or upon the academic discipline). Maybe here I suggested, as my contribution to the meeting was a chance for those of us interested in progressing social justice to lever officially sanctioned space, in our busy day-to-day lives, to do more of this sort of work? Maybe we should welcome the REF impact agenda? I learned afterwards that eminent British sociologists, whom I respect enormously, regarded such a viewpoint as "naive" and "embarrassing". Indeed, critics interpret REF as just one mode of the heightened, neoliberal, managerial control that is degrading academic life and infesting universities. So, how should we think about the REF impact agenda? Because of its obvious connections with social improvement and reform through policy action, social policy is regarded as one disciplinary area that is well-placed to meet and benefit from the impact agenda. Yet there has been surprisingly little concerted discussion amongst scholars about REF and impact. This is despite the fact that many millions of pounds of public funding accrue to the proposed or claimed impact of research (with monies channelled through research councils to individual projects or via regular, six-yearly centralised assessments of the quality of research in university departments). In addition, there is substantial funding directed toward the "impact industry"; the consultants, think tanks, PR firms, funding schemes, new software programmes, impact managers, specialist impact case study... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: What is probably true about the narrator Options: A. they like to contribute ideas B. not enough information C. they are reserved D. they are shy
A

(Question)
Earlier this week, @naval (CEO and co-founder of AngelList) asked a question on Twitter: "The challenge of the next decade is not Artificial Intelligence, but Human Intelligence. Can we retrain the workforce as knowledge workers?"" At the heart of his question is an interesting observation. As automation and artificial intelligence replaces manual jobs, how do we retrain people in the new knowledge economy where information handling and management is in high demand? I thought I would share some experiences, observations, and recommendations based upon when I did this previously in my career. Back in 2004 I was peddling my wares as a journalist, writing for the tech press. I was living in the West Midlands in England and heard about a new organization in nearby Birmingham called OpenAdvantage. The premise was neat: open source was becoming a powerful force in technology and OpenAdvantage was set up to provide free consultancy for companies wanting to harness open source, as well as individuals who wanted to upskill in these new technologies. At the time in the West Midlands lots of industry was being automated and moved out to Asia, so lots of Midlanders were out of jobs and looking to retrain. This required, by definition, retaining the workforce as knowledge workers. OpenAdvantage was funded by the UK government and the University of Central England, had a decent war chest, and was founded by Scott Thompon and Paul Cooper (the latter of which I met when he heckled me at a talk I gave at a Linux User Group once. 🙂 ) So, I went along to their launch event and wrote a piece about them. Shortly after, Paul and Scott invited me back over to the office and offered me a job there as an open source consultant. I took the role, and this is where I cut my teeth on a lot of open source, community, and working with businesses. We had crazy targets to hit each month, so we ended up working with and training hundreds of organizations and individuals across a wide range of areas, and covering a wide berth of open source... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: What did the author think of OpenAdvantage? Options: A. he was disgusted B. he was horrified C. he was impressed D. not enough information
(Answer)
C

The White House has announced sanctions against 38 Russian individuals and companies, saying the United States is standing up to ongoing "malign activity" by the Russian government against Western democracies and around the world. At Friday's White House briefing, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the U.S. still wants to work with Russia. "Again, what we would like to see is the totality of the Russian behavior change. We want to continue having conversations and work forward to building a better relationship," Sanders said. The sanctions will be imposed on seven Russian oligarchs including Oleg Deripaska, an aluminum magnate and close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin and 12 companies they own or control. Seventeen senior Russian government officials, as well as a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its subsidiary, a Russian bank, also will be targeted. The group includes key members of Putin's inner circle. Those sanctioned will have their assets blocked in the U.S. and people in the U.S. are barred from doing business with them. Friday, a number of U.S. lawmakers and foreign policy experts welcomed the measure, saying the sanctions are overdue. Representative Adam Schiff of California, ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the move is the strongest action taken by the Trump administration to date for Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and "its murder of dissidents at home and abroad." "The sanctioning of oligarchs like Oleg Deripaska, who is linked to Paul Manafort, Alexander Torshin and Putin's son-in-law, will send a strong message to the Kremlin," Schiff said in a statement. Florida's Marco Rubio, a Republican senator and former presidential candidate, also welcomed Friday's announcement. "These new sanctions send a clear message to Vladimir Putin that the illegal occupation of Ukraine, support for war crimes [under Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime], efforts to undermine Western democracies, and... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: What did Putin do after hearing the sanctions the US imposed? Options: A. not enough information B. told his leaders to help the common people more C. Discussed the sanctions with his fellow leaders in Russia D. told Trump he was willing to comply with all the sanctions
A