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... Question: Why did the sociologists think the author was naive? Options: - Because they were at a Activism in Sociology Forum meeting. - not enough information - Because there is substantial funding directed toward the impact industry. - Because of what the author said at a meeting. === The correct answer is
Because of what the author said at a meeting.

But corrected figures, provided by the U.S. military and published Tuesday by SIGAR, suggest that the actual decline was 17,980. Pentagon officials acknowledged originally providing inaccurate figures to SIGAR because of a failure "to account for the transfer of most of the Afghan Border Force from the Afghan National Police to the Afghan National Army," according to a SIGAR statement. According to the new figures, there were 313,728 members of the Afghan defense forces as of January 31, 2018. That compares to a total of 296,409, as previously reported. "SIGAR receives all of the (Afghan National Defense and Security Forces) personnel strength numbers published in the quarterly report from USFOR-A and has no means of independently verifying them," the statement added. The new figures still amount to a sharp decline. Afghan forces suffered unprecedented casualties in 2017, reportedly losing about 10,000 personnel, according to reports. SIGAR has been unable to publicly disclose the exact number of Afghan forces killed, because that information continues to be classified by Washington and Kabul. The violence has led to increased reports of Afghan military desertions, but that information too has been classified. Senior U.S. military officials repeatedly have acknowledged the nearly 17-year-old conflict remains a stalemate, even while touting some successes under the new strategy announced by President Donald Trump in August. Those success include the increasing capability of the Afghan military, which began conducting airstrikes two years ago. The Afghan air force carries out between four to 12 airstrikes every day, according to the Afghan Ministry of Defense. But the Kabul government controls just over half of the country's districts, SIGAR says. Trump's strategy appeared to commit the U.S. to Afghanistan indefinitely. It involves pressuring Pakistan to end its support for Afghan militants, supporting Kabul's effort to engage the Taliban in peace talks, and dropping more bombs on the country. The U.S.-led... Question: What is probably true about Donald Trump? Options: - He wants to succeed in Afghanistan. - not enough information - He wants to pull out of Afghanistan immediately. - He wants another new strategy for Afghanistan. === The correct answer is
He wants to succeed in Afghanistan.

Q: The Trump administration's decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census divided Capitol Hill on Tuesday, with Democrats saying the addition could skew the results and alter millions in government funding, while some Republicans praised it as a "commonsense" move. U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced late Monday the next effort to count every resident in the country will include a question about citizenship status. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the survey every 10 years, with the next set for 2020. The deadline for finalizing the questions is Saturday. In a memo late Monday, Ross said he chose to include the query at the urging of the Department of Justice, which said it needed the citizenship data to better enforce a law protecting minority voting rights. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended the addition of the question, rejecting the notion that it might result in less federal aid to immigrant communities in the U.S. if immigrants are undercounted. Republicans on Capitol Hill welcomed the decision, which revives a practice that was abandoned in 1950, after being in place for more than 100 years, according to the Commerce Department. "It is imperative that the data gathered in the census is reliable, given the wide-ranging impacts it will have on U.S. policy. A question on citizenship is a reasonable, commonsense addition to the census," Senator Ted Cruz said in a statement Tuesday. But Democrats said the question would have the opposite effect discouraging undocumented immigrants and citizen family members from responding to the census, undermining the accuracy of the results. "We cannot accept an incomplete or unfair count in 2020 too much is at stake," Rep. Carolyn Maloney, co-chair of the Congressional Census Caucus, told VOA. "The census mandated by the [U.S.] Constitution affects the way that Federal and state funds are distributed and how district lines are drawn for both the city, state and Federal level." Question: The memo by Wilbur Ross is probably how long? Options: - A few pages. - not enough information - Four-hundred and fifty-two pages. - Three words. === The correct answer is
A: A few pages.