Question: As academic work is becoming arguably more precarious and competitive, shorter contracts are becoming the norm, and the number of people completing PhDs in the UK is increasing, the risks associated with researching academia are high. This post discusses and explores my experiences of being a PhD student researching women's lived experiences of research evaluation in the UK, and my thoughts on and experiences of interviewing very senior and esteemed academics as a junior researcher. My PhD study explored research evaluation in the form of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) a weighty force in UK academia the outcomes of which, I argue, hold the potential to alter the course of an academic career considerably, as well as playing a role in the type of work that some academics do, particularly given the REF impact agenda. There is currently an international trend towards research evaluation with programmes such as the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA), the Performance-Based Research fund in New Zealand (PBRF), and equivalents in countries including Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands. What is clear is that there is not enough qualitative, exploratory research into the effects of research evaluation on academic careers, especially for women, and so my PhD study was born. My findings suggest that research evaluation in the UK actively contributes to the continuance of gender inequality regimes in the academy, and that the ability to negotiate managerial control and be politically savvy is increasingly important in the academic world. Before embarking on my PhD, I was acutely aware of the sensitivity of my research, as well as my own positionality with regards to my participants. Reflection is and was an important element in the research process for me, as it allowed me to reflect on the effects of the self on the research process and, ultimately, also on the data, as well as the various power dynamics discernible during interviews for my study. I was continually taken aback by participants'... Question: Why did the author interview academics? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- To study the New Zealand Performance-Based fund.
- To examine the Excellence in Research for Australia.
- To get data for the PhD study.
Answer: To get data for the PhD study.

input with options: The U.S. Supreme Court plunged into the politically messy issue of redrawing congressional and legislative districts Tuesday, in a case that could have profound implications for both major political parties for years to come. The high court heard oral arguments in a case brought by Democratic voters in Wisconsin. They argued that a Republican redistricting plan for the state assembly was so overtly partisan that it violated constitutional protections of freedom of speech and equal protection under the law for Wisconsin voters. A lower federal court sided with the challengers last year and against Republican state officials in Wisconsin. Officials argued Tuesday that they had not violated any constitutional rights when they drew up new boundaries for state assembly districts. "Our legislature followed traditional redistricting criteria, which is what they have been required to do and we think they followed that and that the justices will agree," Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel told reporters in front of the court following the oral arguments. The process of state legislatures redrawing congressional and legislative district boundaries has been enmeshed in politics for two centuries. Early on, the process was referred to as "gerrymandering," where one party or the other tries to gain an electoral advantage by redrawing district boundaries to maximize their voting clout. Republicans have had success in several states in redrawing congressional and legislative voting districts and that has helped them maintain their majority in the House of Representatives. Democrats have come under fire as well for partisan maps in states where they control the legislature, like Maryland and Massachusetts. During Tuesday's oral arguments, the more liberal high court justices seemed open to the case brought by Democratic voters. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said a ruling in favor of the Republican districting plan in Wisconsin would encourage others to stack the deck against their political opponents. "What becomes of the... Question: What cases are probably referred to the supreme court === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- Only cases involving the legislature
- Only cases that are not traditional
- Difficult and important ones
- not enough information
output: Difficult and important ones

Q: Recently the subject of discrimination has been something I have been thinking a lot about. It was the subject of some meetings with ubuntu-women, something I have discussed with my friend Sulamita in a Brazilian bar at 4.30am and the subject of various ad-hoc discussions at the Ubuntu Developer Summit. As the wider Open Source community grows, it becomes more of an issue every day, and something we all need to be aware of. While in Brazil I made a promise to Sulamita that I would be blogging about the issue of discrimination against women, and I have been holding off writing an entry until I had some real, practical, implementable steps that I can advise people to take to help make the situation better. Although I will never fully understand how some women are made to feel at the hands of such discrimination, I have been hoping my contribution could be to help contribute to an awareness of the issue, and for that to happen I felt I needed to construct some doable steps that people can execute. Solving social problems is hard though, which ain't all that surprising, so I had held off on a blog post until I had some such action points. I have since discovered that there is really one key step that we all need take don't accept or allow discrimination in your community. In my mind all discrimination is bad. Every day people get up and are discriminated due to gender, age, race, mobility, technical knowledge and more. The issues of discrimination, while different in the specifics (e.g. women are discriminated in different ways to age discrimination), the underlying issue is very similar mistreating people because of a grouping they are part of. We have all suffered this in different ways, from serious racial hatred to someone not taking you seriously because you have long hair and an Iron Maiden t-shirt. Question: Who does the author believe suffers from discrimination? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Women
- The Ubuntu
- Everyone

A: Everyone

Q: U.S. President Donald Trump is sending a $4.4 trillion budget request to Congress that includes money for a southern border wall and building up the military, but is projected to increase the federal deficit by more than $1 trillion. White House officials all but acknowledged the proposal unveiled Monday has little chance of becoming law Congress alone controls federal government spending. But the White House insisted the budget proposal still sends an important message about Trump's priorities. "This is a messaging document," White House budget director Mick Mulvaney told reporters at a briefing Monday. The Trump budget calls for major cuts to domestic programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps. But the plan would still not balance the federal budget, in part because of reduced federal revenue due to tax cuts passed last year. Democrats widely rejected the plan. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the proposal a "brutal collection of broken promises and staggering cuts." The proposal's failure to eliminate debt is also likely to upset some Republicans, who have traditionally opposed budget deficits. "It's simply adjusting to the Washington, D.C., we live in," Mulvaney said, stressing that the new budget plan would help "turn the tide" on national debt. The White House proposal builds on the massive, two-year spending bill passed last week by Congress and signed by the president. That bill includes a major boost for the military, as well as domestic programs. Mulvaney, a former lawmaker and long-time opponent of federal debt, has acknowledged he likely would not have supported the bill were he still in Congress. But he said the new White House proposal does not mean that all of the money approved by Congress must be spent. "These are spending caps, these are not spending floors," he said. Under the two-year budget deal reached last week by Congress, the Pentagon will get a record-high $700 billion for 2018 fulfilling a Trump campaign pledge. "We took care of the military like it's never... Question: Who said the proposal doesn't mean that all approved funds must be spent? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- President Trump
- not enough information
- pelosi
- Mulvaney

A:
Mulvaney