Social Sciences

Hampered by 'scientism?' U of T researcher examines the history of American social science

Christopher.Sorensen — Tue, 12 Apr 2022 14:53:30 +0000

Hampered by 'scientism?' U of T researcher examines the history of American social science

Christopher.Sorensen Tue, 04/12/2022 - 10:53

Cutline

Mark Solovey, a professor in the Institute for the History & Philosophy of Science & Technology, explores the historical mistrust of social science in his latest book (photo courtesy of Solovey)

Cynthia Macdonald

Topic

Our Community

Faculty of Arts & Science

Global

Social Sciences

United States

Early in the Cold War era, “social sciences were criticized for not being really scientific – for being ideological and political in ways that may seem to have been disguised as science,” says Mark Solovey, a professor in the Institute for the History & Philosophy of Science & Technology at the ��Ƶ.

"[At the time], there was animosity in the U.S. towards socialism and communism. This caused a lot of problems for social scientists and their supporters, who argued for a science of society which was separate from ideology and politics.”

Social scientists were also pressed about the social relevance of their work regarding problems such as racism, income inequality, and crime, and threats to democracy, Solovey adds.

Solovey’s latest book, Social Science for What?: Battles Over Public Funding for the ‘’Other Sciences’’ at the National Science Foundation, explores the historical mistrust of social science, which he says continues to this day. He argues that when it comes to funding for academically oriented research, American social scientists have been more dependent on the U.S. National Science Foundation than their counterparts in natural science – the latter also find strong support from other science patrons. Yet, at the NSF the social sciences have had to contend with less respect over many decades due to critical attitudes toward the field.

Solovey has long studied the development of the social sciences in the U.S. In the case of the NSF, he says, support has always been hampered by “scientism,” the perception that natural science, governed by immutable laws and grounded in rigorous methods of inquiry, existed on a more elevated plane that the social sciences needed to emulate.

Like natural scientists, social scientists are concerned with evidence-based research and use both quantitative and qualitative tools to arrive at conclusions. But they are uniquely concerned with human society and social relationships, which are entangled with normative judgments and morality.

“When the NSF was established, its founders had to decide: Is there such a thing as a social science and, if so, how would we know if we see it?” Solovey says. “Certain areas of research have been institutionalized, such as sociology, economics, anthropology, political science. Psychology has areas that are more social, others that are more biological. There have always been boundary disputes.”

Social science funding has only ever represented a small proportion of the NSF’s budget. “In the late 1950s social sciences represented maybe two per cent of the total,” says Solovey. “Then came the 1960s, which was a different era in U.S. society.”

At that point, social science entered a kind of golden age due to its association with bold policy initiatives launched during the presidencies of John. F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Scientists helped to promote federal programs to tackle a wide array of problems, including, as Solovey writes, “juvenile delinquency, urban blight, racial conflict, poverty and unemployment.” By the late 1960s, the NSF allocated around seven per cent of its budget to social science – “the highest it’s ever reached,” Solovey says.

But in the 1970s, the pendulum swung back toward conservative mistrust. Liberals also expressed mistrust of some social science research, especially that which they saw as serving conservative economic or political ideals, practices and policies.

Solovey’s book takes readers to the end of the Reagan presidency and, in a short final chapter, up to the present day, leaving questions about the future of social science support in the U.S.

His book proposes a new funding agency for the social sciences in the U.S.: a National Social Science Foundation, which would seek to support social research on a broad front by welcoming and promoting work grounded in humanistic as well as scientific approaches – perhaps along the lines of Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

“This proposal already came up in the late 1960s when there was a fair bit of interest,” Solovey says. “For me, it’s the most interesting episode in the entire story: there was a proposal in Congress, there were national hearings, the Senate voted to support it. But it never got support in the House of Representatives. And, by the late 1960s, the climate had changed and the whole idea disappeared. Since then, this idea has basically vanished.”

In their investigations of employment trends, poverty, political behaviour, human sexuality and so many other domains, Solovey notes that social scientists continue to rely on sources of public and private support. The contributions that they can make to society are all the more critical in times of global illness, war, and climate change.

“I would very much like American social scientists and people interested in the problem of funding to support a proposal for a National Social Science Foundation.”

A gathering of minds: Maanjiwe nendamowinan officially opens at U of T Mississauga

Christopher.Sorensen — Mon, 25 Nov 2019 19:47:28 +0000

A gathering of minds: Maanjiwe nendamowinan officially opens at U of T Mississauga

Christopher.Sorensen Mon, 11/25/2019 - 14:47

Cutline

From left to right: Meric Gertler, Ayah Abdeldayem, Ziyad Vahed, Atif Abdullah, Ian Orchard, R. Stacey Laforme, Jane Pepino, Rose Patten, Bonnie Crombie (photo by Blake Eligh)

Topic

The ��Ƶ Mississauga officially opened Maanjiwe nendamowinan on Friday, the final phase of the redevelopment of the former North Building.

Maanjiwe nendamowinan is an Anishinaabemowin phrase meaning “gathering of minds.” The name was chosen after a university committee unanimously recommended an Indigenous name be considered. The Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, on whose traditional territory the campus now stands, provided the name.

“We are pleased we could acknowledge the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation with the naming of this building and demonstrate our commitment to engaging with Indigenous communities as we work together to lead the process of reconciliation,” U of T president Meric Gertler said at a ceremony attended by Misssissauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie and Chief R. Stacey Laforme of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

The new six-storey structure is home to the humanities and social sciences departments and includes almost 40,000 square feet of new classroom space. The building boasts cutting-edge technology designed to facilitate collaboration, more than 500 study spaces to accommodate individual and group work, a space for digital humanities research and a large, open atrium that doubles as an event space.

The building has achieved LEED silver designation and incorporates a number of environmental innovations, including a 20,000-gallon rainwater reuse system for irrigation and toilet flushing, energy-efficient mechanical systems, a green cleaning program, special glass to deter bird strikes and five green roof spaces.

“Our newest building has not only been designed with the needs of today’s students, faculty and staff in mind, it also represents our commitment to building a sustainable future on campus,” said Ian Orchard, acting vice-president and principal of U of T Mississauga.

“These environmental innovations are in keeping with our pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions and work toward becoming a net-zero institution.”

The building sits on the site of the former North Building, which was the first building on campus, and houses the departments of English and drama, philosophy, historical studies, language studies, political science and sociology, the Robert Gillespie Academic Skills Centre and the Centre for South Asian Civilizations.

Maanjiwe nendamowinan was designed by Perkins and Will, and was built by Stuart Olson Inc.

Gillian Hadfield appointed inaugural director of U of T’s Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society and Schwartz Reisman Chair in Technology and Society

Christopher.Sorensen — Fri, 26 Jul 2019 16:23:00 +0000

Gillian Hadfield appointed inaugural director of U of T’s Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society and Schwartz Reisman Chair in Technology and Society

Christopher.Sorensen Fri, 07/26/2019 - 12:23

Cutline

In her new role, Gillian Hadfield will draw on her varied background – in economics and law, humanities, business and high tech – to help ensure technological innovation is implemented fairly and equitably in society (photo courtesy of Gillian Hadfield)

Geoffrey Vendeville

Topic

Our Community

Schwartz Reisman Innovation Centre

Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society

Artificial Intelligence

Biotechnology

Computer Science

Creative Destruction Lab

Economics

Faculty of Arts & Science

Faculty of Information

Regenerative Medicine

Robotics

Rotman School of Management

Social Sciences

Vector Institute

Facial recognition technology. Algorithms that decide who is a good candidate for a loan or medical procedure. Interactive robots in workplaces and seniors’ homes.

These are just a few examples of the many new and emerging technologies that promise to reshape society in profound and, perhaps, unexpected ways – often raising thorny ethical questions in the process.

As the inaugural director of the ��Ƶ’s new Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society and the inaugural Schwartz Reisman Chair in Technology and Society, Gillian Hadfield will draw on her varied background – in economics and law, humanities, business and high tech – to help ensure technological innovation is implemented fairly and equitably in societies around the world.

“Technologies are a means to an end,” says Hadfield, who is a U of T professor in the Faculty of Law and the Rotman School of Management.

“And the end must be a world that is better, safer, kinder, fairer for us all.”

The Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society draws on U of T’s across-the-board strengths in sciences, social sciences and humanities to help foster cross-disciplinary solutions to the profound challenges spawned by rapid technological shifts. The institute was established thanks to a landmark $100-million donation – the largest in U of T’s history – by business leaders and philanthropists Gerald Schwartz and Heather Reisman. The gift will also be used to help break ground on the Schwartz Reisman Innovation Centre at the northeast corner of College Street and University Avenue, a new space for students and faculty innovators working in business, computer science and biotechnology, among other fields.

Learn more about the Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society

“U of T researchers are leaders in fields as diverse as machine learning, regenerative medicine, philosophy, and culture and communications,” says U of T President Meric Gertler.

“The Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society will leverage these strengths to help us understand the impact of technology on society – and, indeed, on humanity itself. The work of the institute will also explore the ways in which public policy, politics, and culture can shape the development and application of technology to serve societal ends.

“It is an ambitious and important mandate, and we are thrilled to welcome Professor Hadfield to her new role as the institute’s inaugural director and chair.”

Hadfield re-joined U of T’s Faculty of Law last year after teaching for 17 years at the University of Southern California. She was originally on faculty at U of T between 1995 and 2001.

The native of Oakville, Ont. has a bachelor’s degree in economics from Queen’s University and a law degree and a PhD in economics from Stanford University. She clerked for Chief Judge Patricia Wald on the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, and has held visiting professorships or fellowships at Harvard, Columbia, NYU, Chicago, and Stanford.

Hadfield was a fellow at Stanford’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, an experience she says has influenced her vision for U of T’s new institute. As an example of the serendipity that can happen when scholars of a wide variety of fields come together, she recalls hearing a talk by an art historian on the complex geometry of Gothic architecture during her fellowship that meshed with her own ideas on economies and how they pass down knowledge. The lecture focused on how much of the know-how needed to reproduce intricate Gothic buildings was bound up in practice rather than in plans and sketches.

“The complexity was rooted in simplicity and it was knowing what steps to take – rather than the math of the whole – that generated the result,” she says. “When masters stopped building the buildings, the knowledge was lost. I remember this point converging with my own thinking about how economies find and transmit knowledge, and how that can also be rooted in practices and not just theory.”

She hopes researchers at the Schwartz Reisman Institute will similarly find inspiration and points of connection in each other’s work, sparking new ideas and maybe even whole new branches of knowledge.

U of T is a particularly suitable home for such collaboration because it boasts world-leading scholars in a wide spectrum of disciplines, she adds.

“The ��Ƶ is a top-flight research university in so many different fields,” she says. “Our ambition for the institute is to knit together research across the sciences, social sciences, the humanities and other fields to find new, concrete solutions to make sure our emerging and powerful technologies go in the direction we want them to go.”

Vivek Goel, vice-president, research and innovation, and strategic initiatives, points out that U of T is one of the few universities in the world that ranks among the top schools in a wide range of subjects.

“U of T’s broad strength across disciplines makes it the ideal place to encourage a cross-pollination of ideas,” says Goel.

“It’s our job to find innovative ways to break down silos between disciplines so these different ideas and perspectives have the opportunity to collide and, hopefully, yield new avenues for research and scholarship, including for graduate students.”

The Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society is just one example of how U of T is seeking to encourage interdisciplinary approaches, having recently created a new senior administrative position tasked with seeding and scaling such initiatives.

Hadfield’s research spans different disciplines and addresses questions ranging from the philosophical to the mathematical. She has called for reforms to the legal system to reduce fees and other barriers faced by the roughly 80 per cent of people who go to court without a lawyer. She expanded on those ideas and the twin challenges of globalization and digitization in her 2017 book, Rules for a Flat World: Why Humans Invented Law and How to Reinvent it for a Complex Global Economy (a reference to Thomas Friedman’s bestseller The World Is Flat.) She has taught a course based on her book at U of T and co-led the Legal Design Lab (with her husband Dan Ryan, a professor at U of T’s Faculty of Information), an incubator-workshop bringing together students in law, engineering, business, design and information studies to come up with innovative solutions to problems involving access to justice. At Rotman, she teaches about AI and how to ensure its responsible development with the Creative Destruction Lab and the new Vector Institute for Artificial Intelligence-affiliated Master in Management Analytics.

In addition to research and teaching, Hadfield brings experience as a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Agile Governance, which focuses on “adaptive, human-centered, inclusive and sustainable” policy-making in the face of technological advancement. She is also deeply engaged in questions about rules and governance surrounding artificial intelligence as a policy adviser for Open AI in San Francisco, an adviser to courts and tech companies, and as a faculty affiliate at the Vector Institute.

One of her early goals as director of the Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society and Schwartz Reisman Chair in Technology and Society will be to build a “truly integrated, team-based approach to problem solving” by connecting researchers in different disciplines.

“One of the first things we will be doing is looking for people who are really interested in engaging with, and respectful of, approaches in other disciplines,” she says. “The first thing we can do is find those people and start to build that community of collaboration. That’s something that takes thoughtfulness and care.”

In the future, she wants the institute to be known around the world as the go-to place to learn about the technological challenges facing society and to convene to work on their possible solutions.

“I think it’s a great ambition that in 10 years, we’ll have generated new fields of research,” Hadfield says. “I’ll be asking, ‘Have we really created something where we have broken down the silos between disciplines and created truly cross-disciplinary approaches?’

“I’d like to see us being part of inventing a new way to do intellectual work. And with that, to have invented new ways to make sure that our powerful technologies develop in ways that serve humanity well.”

Technology and equality: Ruha Benjamin, U of T experts to tackle thorny issues at first Schwartz Reisman event

Romi Levine — Fri, 07 Jun 2019 15:41:57 +0000

Technology and equality: Ruha Benjamin, U of T experts to tackle thorny issues at first Schwartz Reisman event

Romi Levine Fri, 06/07/2019 - 11:41

Cutline

Ruha Benjamin, an associate professor of African American studies at Princeton University, is the keynote speaker at the Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society’s inaugural symposium (photo courtesy of Ruha Benjamin)

Romi Levine

Topic

Our Community

Ontario Impact

Schwartz Reisman Innovation Centre

Artificial Intelligence

Humanities

Research & Innovation

Social Sciences

Technology continues to evolve at breakneck speed, promising solutions for some of the world’s biggest problems.

But rapid innovation can also cause issues of its own, from aggravating existing socio-economic divides to creating products that discriminate against certain groups – like facial recognition technologies that don’t recognize users with darker skin tones.

Experts from across the ��Ƶ – from bioethicists to artists and artificial intelligence researchers – are coming together on June 11 to explore these and other problems at Fairness and Equity in a Digital Age, the newly created Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society’s inaugural symposium.

The event’s keynote address will be delivered by Ruha Benjamin, an associate professor of African American studies at Princeton University whose research explores the social dimensions of science, technology and medicine.

“U of T experts are exploring the intersections between society and technology from a wide range of disciplines across the university,” said Vivek Goel, U of T's vice-president of research and innovation.

“This symposium brings together those important conversations into a public forum – setting the stage for the incredible range of interactions and scholarship that we expect to take place at the Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society.”

The institute is supported by a historic, $100-million gift from Gerald Schwartz and Heather Reisman. Starting with next week’s inaugural event, the institute will create a forum for dynamic public engagement through a steady calendar of activities that includes high-profile speaker events, workshops seminars and a major international conference – all while facilitating cross-disciplinary research and collaboration in fields ranging from sciences to humanities.

Benjamin applauded the new U of T institute for tackling big issues head-on at its first symposium.

“I love the fact that they're prioritizing the society-technology relationship right from the get-go rather than an afterthought,” she said.

U of T News recently spoke with Benjamin about the upcoming event and her views on equity and innovation.

What will you be speaking about at the event?

I'm going to be looking at the relationship between innovation and inequity. One of the main points I want us to get across is that, if we do business as usual and don't take the social inequalities that exist seriously on par with the technical advancements, we are going to by default reproduce the existing inequalities by virtue of engaging in innovation.

One of the examples that I tend to draw on is looking at Silicon Valley – the geography, the demographics. One of the things that's happened there in the last decade or so is the housing crisis there has really escalated in conjunction with the development of the tech industry. There's one-in-three school children who are experiencing housing insecurity, which is a kind of euphemism for actually being homeless, and it's in relation to the growth of an industry that promises that it's investing in a better future, but that future is stratified.

One of the things I want those who are involved in all the innovation sectors to take on as part of their responsibility is to think seriously – to collaborate with people who have expertise in the social sciences and the humanities, to be able to integrate that body of knowledge into their work.

How are inequities built into the design of technologies?

One of the things I'm trying to draw out through my work, in conversation with many other scholars, is looking at the social inputs to technology – so starting the story earlier and thinking about the social order, the demographic of people who are designing the technologies, the economic structure that incentivizes something and really shapes what we then think up as an inevitable development.

One of the things I'm trying to de-naturalize is this idea that technology grows on trees. We have to look at what we are embedding in these technologies.

What are some examples of how biases are built into technological design?

One example many people will have come across on YouTube is soap dispensers that don't recognize darker skin. It's a simple automation that, because of its design through infrared technologies, the light doesn't reflect off darker skin, so the soap doesn't come out. On one hand, it seems like a superficial, inconsequential form of discrimination. If you go on YouTube and look up "racist soap dispensers," even the two individuals – one light-skinned, one dark-skinned – who are demonstrating it are giggling through the video, because it seems inconsequential.

But when we then zoom out a bit and think about how those same design decisions get amplified, we think about automated systems that are deciding who should receive parole in the judicial system. Here you have a much more complex form of automation that's saying low-risk or high-risk. Based on that, it judges either releasing someone or giving them a longer sentence.

In that case, race is never explicitly part of the design, but all of the questions that are eliciting the riskiness of a person – whether their neighbourhood has a high crime rate, whether people in their family are unemployed, whether they've ever been arrested before – are shaped by racist practices and processes before they ever get to the point where the algorithm is deciding if they're risky.

What we found through audits of these systems is that Black individuals are much more likely to be coded as higher risk than white individuals. We find over time that the white individuals were more likely to re-commit a crime than the Black individuals who were coded "higher risk."

One of the real takeaways I'm hoping to discuss with folks is the way that public policy decisions are happening in the private sector. The people most affected have no say, and are not voting for individuals who are making these design decisions that are having these real-life impacts. I think we have to become more transparent and have a more democratic process in terms of which technologies we sanction.

Why do you think it's important to have public events and discussions to talk about issues of equity and innovation?

These conversations are important because it affects everyone, and so few people have a genuine say in the technologies and their advancement, which are promised as a universal public good.

The greater variety of individuals that are part of the process – but also moving beyond conversation – allows us to really think about the day-to-day processes in terms of who has power to actually say, "Let's go ahead and design that" or "Let's not do that."

Those mechanisms and that participation has to be honestly evaluated and transformed if we are going to do more than just talk.

What is education’s role in the conversation around equity and innovation?

How ever we want things to be in the future, we plant a seed in education. Most likely, when we inherit the educational practices from the past and we keep them going, education too often is the main mechanism in which we reproduce inequality.

Because of the way we design the educational system itself, it too often reproduces inequality. But it also means if we were to be more thoughtful, diligent and visionary about how we educate the next generation, that it can also be the mechanism for greater equity and justice.

Specifically with respect to technology, one of the key things we have to do in terms of the way we structure education is not to limit conversations about equity and inclusion to particular disciplines. It should not just be the purview of the social sciences or ethics, and cornered away in these different arenas. The people who are being trained to actually design technologies also need a tool kit in which they can be thinking about these questions of equity and inclusion.

One of the things we are finding in the last couple years is many tech workers are raising their voice to question the kinds of things the companies and organizations they work in are producing. They're walking out, they're petitioning, they are naming themselves conscientious objectors. There's a whole movement within the tech industry where there's a growing consciousness about these issues – and, if I had to guess, I would think these individuals were exposed to these issues and these questions as college students through the course of their training. I don't think it's an epiphany that happens on the job. These things have been percolating.

Watch an interview with Ruha Benjamin on CTV

Learn more about the Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society and watch the symposium here

Tracing the steps of nearly 10,000 U of T PhDs after graduation

geoff.vendeville — Thu, 01 Feb 2018 05:00:00 +0000

Tracing the steps of nearly 10,000 U of T PhDs after graduation

geoff.vendeville Thu, 02/01/2018 - 00:00

Cutline

PhD students at a convocation ceremony in June 2014 (photo by Johnny Guatto)

Geoffrey Vendeville

Topic

City & Culture

Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering

Rotman School of Management

School of Graduate Studies

Social Sciences

Subheadline

“What we see in the results is the wide variety of job options”

Where do I go from here? It's a question all students ask themselves approaching graduation, and one that is particularly important for students who have devoted five or six years to a PhD.

The answer, it turns out, is anywhere.

In a first-ever survey of PhD graduates from the ��Ƶ, the School of Graduate Studies found that alumni who graduated between 2000 and 2015 are working in 97 different countries, with careers ranging from neurosurgeon to user-experience researcher.

About 60 per cent of graduates across all disciplines found work in academia, and roughly a third hold tenure-stream positions. However, the data suggest PhD graduates are increasingly ending up outside the academy. Comparing the cohorts of 2015 to 2000, nearly twice the proportion of PhDs were employed in the private sector (23 per cent as opposed to 13 per cent).

“Partly what we see in the results is the wide variety of job options that PhD students' futures might hold,” says SGS Dean Joshua Barker. “It's really the beginning of a conversation that I think will be very helpful for students as they think about the pathways from their studies into their careers.”

Take a closer look at the data on the SGS website

Employment sectors of all PhDs in the survey by division between 2000 and 2015 (courtesy of the School of Graduate Studies)

The project was initiated by Professor Reinhart Reithmeier, with support from former Dean Locke Rowe. Researchers compiled the data using internet searches of open-access data sources, such as official university and company websites, to determine a PhD’s current employment. They found the professional outcomes of nearly 10,000 former students, or 88 per cent of graduates, over the 15 years covered by the study. With the help of U of T’s Institutional Data Hub, SGS then created an interactive dashboard that allows users to customize their exploration of the data.

Read about the survey in the Globe and Mail

The list of current private-sector employers reads like a who's who of top companies: Google, Intel, Janssen, RBC and Scotiabank figure in the top five. PhD graduates in the post-secondary sector can be found everywhere from Canadian universities to the National University of Singapore. In the public sector, the top employers included the University Health Network, the Hospital for Sick Children and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

Barker, whose own PhD focused on Indonesia during the dictatorship of the 1990s, says U of T graduates with advanced degrees are well positioned to find jobs in new and interesting fields. “Toronto is emerging as one of the hubs of the knowledge economy, and the specialized training PhDs acquire can play a big part in elevating and expanding innovation locally and globally,” he says.

The data show how U of T contributes to a “brain gain” in Canada, with nearly half (46 per cent) of permanent residents and international students finding employment here.

The study is not the only good news U of T has received about the future prospects of its graduates. Over the past several years, the university has consistently led other Canadian institutions in Times Higher Education's global university employability rankings.

Like any study, the SGS survey has its limitations, Barker says. “This study tells us where our recent cohorts of our PhDs have landed, but further research will be needed to understand the pathway that led them there, or how they feel about that pathway.”

U of T News went beyond the numbers by speaking to four PhD graduates and one current student, Hadiya Roderique, about their time here, why they pursued a PhD and how it has prepared them for the future.

Inmar Givoni

Machine learning (2005-2011)

The similarities between the human brain and artificial intelligence are often overstated, Givoni says. But in her case, an early fascination with neuroscience preceded her interest in machine learning.

In high school, she became interested in one of the body's great mysteries: brain functioning. She grew up aspiring to become a neuroscientist, and spent a summer in a lab studying the rat's visual cortex.

She changed her mind after taking a course in machine learning at Hebrew University and switched her focus to artificial intelligence. “I thought, 'OK, I still want to do research, but instead of trying to understand the brain, maybe I can focus on trying to create machines and build algorithms that mimic what the brain does.'”

That goal led her to U of T, a world leader in the field. She was paired with her adviser Professor Brendan Frey, the founder and CEO of startup Deep Genomics, which uses machine learning to develop genetic medicines.

She graduated in 2011 and now applies her research to her work as an autonomy engineering manager at Uber in Toronto. Over and above technical skills, she says she learned to be her own boss.

“You're not doing [the work] because someone is telling you to do it,” she says. “You really have to have the motivation within yourself.”

Helen Marshall

Medieval and Renaissance studies (2008-2013)

Marshall says she wouldn't be the writer she is today if she hadn't pored over medieval manuscripts in university.

She's the author of two short story collections and two poetry collections, and a senior lecturer of creative writing and publishing at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England,

Her first book of short stories, Hair Side, Flesh Side, takes its title from the animal skins used for parchment. The collection includes Blessed, the story of a seven-year-old girl, Chloe, whose divorced parents give her the bodies of saints in an eerie game of one-upmanship. It starts when Chloe receives the body of St. Lucia of Syracuse as a birthday present from her dad. “It was rough like a cat's tongue in some places and smooth as fine-grained wood in others where the bone peeked through,” Marshall writes. Not to be outdone, Chloe's mom later gives her the body of Joan of Arc.

Marshall told U of T News she was inspired by a chapter she was writing on medieval saints' lives and how their bodies “had become this odd sort of tourist industry.”

“There was something about taking holy bodies and doing something really mundane and commercial around them,” she says. “It seemed funny to me – an odd paradox of the Middle Ages to play with.”

At U of T, she was part of a writers' group with students in medieval studies and literature – including Kari Maaren, who published her first novel last year.

When she started her PhD, Marshall thought getting her doctorate would mean becoming an expert in one field. “Since then what's surprised me the most is to realize that actually I learned a set of skills that means I can become the expert of any field I want to – because it's about learning the processes of research and critical thinking.”

Emma Planinc

Political science (2011-2017)

There was never any doubt in Planinc's mind: She wanted to be a professor. After studying literature and philosophy at U of T as an undergrad and then taking a master's in political science at McGill University, she returned to Toronto for a PhD in political science.

“Devoting six years of my life to the PhD always felt like a cost I was willing to bear because I thought I couldn't be doing anything else,” she says.

“There is a big transformative moment when you're doing your PhD,” she added, which begins with writing your thesis proposal. The degree gave her the time and freedom to think deeply about the subjects that interest her, including 18th-century French philosophy and natural science. Her dissertation is the basis of her in-progress first book, Regenerating Political Animals, which situates the “Declaration of The Rights of Man and of the Citizen” from the French Revolution within the context of contemporary science, theology and philosophy.

In a way, she's come full circle to her interests in literature and philosophy, having recently accepted a tenure-track position as an assistant professor at the University of Notre Dame in the liberal studies program. In addition to political theory, she will be teaching canonical books like The Odyssey. She starts her new job this fall.

Michael Selvanayagam

Electrical and computer engineering (2010-2014)

Selvanayagam spent part of his PhD working on an idea that sounds straight from science fiction: an invisibility cloak.

He and his supervisor, electromagnetics Professor George Eleftheriades (above, right) in the Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering, developed a device that can hide a metal cylinder from radar detection, or make the cylinder appear smaller, bigger or plastic.

Hadiya Roderique

Organizational behaviour and human resource management (2012-present)

Roderique, a U of T law graduate, is now pursuing a PhD at U of T. She was one of only five Black lawyers at a prestigious Bay Street law firm. Her time working in law, which she describes in a widely read Globe and Mail piece, left her feeling like she didn’t belong.

Questions that arose from that experience led her to quit her job and pursue a PhD at the Rotman School of Management.

Her thesis deals with parenthood. “I'm particularly interested in social relationships in the workplace,” she says. “We've observed gender differences in these social relationships, but we also have research that shows mothers are uniquely penalized in the workplace.”

She expects to defend her thesis this summer and has already lined up interviews with top consulting companies.

She thinks it’s unlikely she will end up in academia. “I see my role as a translator, someone who can make sense of the very important research people are doing and communicate that to the world, whether through journalism, consulting or policy development.”

Bolstering Canadian research: U of T welcomes federal science review

ullahnor — Mon, 10 Apr 2017 19:58:21 +0000

Bolstering Canadian research: U of T welcomes federal science review

ullahnor Mon, 04/10/2017 - 15:58

Cutline

Barbara Sherwood Lollar, a professor of earth sciences, won the prestigious NSERC award in 2016 for research into billion-year-old water. NSERC is one of the federal research agencies discussed in the Fundamental Science Review (photo courtesy of NSERC)

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Author legacy

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Topic

Breaking Research

Canada Research Chairs

The ��Ƶ welcomed the release on April 10 of the long-anticipated review of the federal government’s support for fundamental science.

Chaired by U of T President Emeritus Dr. David Naylor, the Fundamental Science Review panel, which also included former U of T president Robert Birgeneau, was asked last year to look for overall program gaps in Canada’s research funding ecosystem. The panel explored a breadth of disciplines including the social sciences and humanities.

The panel’s report offered 35 recommendations on issues of governance and enhanced support for early-career researchers, as well as calling for a boost of $1.3 billion in federal funding. It’s been four decades since a comprehensive review of this scale has occurred at the federal level.

“We welcome the dedicated work of the panel,” said Vivek Goel, U of T’s vice-president of research and innovation. “The panel identified the significance of the full range of scholarship – a broad definition of research beyond just fundamental science – and they’ve proposed a way of better coordinating the funding ecosystem.”

The panel’s key recommendations include:

The formation of a formal coordinating board for the four federal research agencies − Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) − chaired by the Chief Science Advisor.
The creation of a new National Advisory Council on Research and Innovation (NACRI) to provide broad oversight of the federal research and innovation ecosystems.
The government of Canada should provide CFI with a stable annual budget.
The government of Canada should mandate and fund CFI to increase its share of the matching ratio for national-scale major research facilities from 40 to 60 per cent.
The government should renew the Canada Research Chairs program, including restoring funding to 2012 levels and adjusting it to account for inflation since 2000.
The government should gradually increase funding to the Research Support Fund until the reimbursement rate is 40 per cent for all institutions.

Andrew Thomson, chief of government relations at U of T, said the review was timely.

“We believe it will provide a basis for improved coordination across the granting councils for all research endeavours,” Thomson said. “This is about strengthening the Canadian research ecosystem, which drives the economic, social and cultural growth of the country.”

Read the Globe and Mail story

The review was done by a panel of experts chaired by Dr. Naylor. It warned that years of dwindling research- and development- investment in Canada have left the country’s federal research ecosystem “weakly coordinated and inconsistently evaluated” and lacking “consistent oversight.”

Read the Maclean's story

U of T’s submission to the panel was one of 1,275 written submissions the panel reviewed from associations, organizations and individuals. The review also convened roundtables in five Canadian cities, talking to 230 researchers.

Read the CBC story

Goel said U of T was pleased to see the call for a public conversation about the value of investments in discovery-based research, as well as recommendations on improving communication and coordination among all of the major funding bodies.

“The panel has chosen an approach of creating a coordinating body and oversight group, this National Advisory Council on Research and Innovation (NACRI), that’s a very efficient way of dealing with this very complex issue,” he said.

Read the Toronto Star story

The university hopes to take a closer look at the implications of the recommendations, including calls for increased investment in the direct costs for research and the indirect costs, which are covered by the Research Support Fund.

“We are particularly pleased that the report also recommends greater investment in the Research Support Fund to better align the level of funding with the full costs of research borne by the university,” Thomson said. “This multi-year roadmap helps support top talent at U of T and our next generation of researchers.”

Minister of Science Kirsty Duncan launched the panel in June 2016. In a statement, Duncan said the government will be taking a close look at the panel’s recommendations.

“I look forward to reviewing the panel's recommendations and will continue listening to and engaging in an open and thoughtful way with Canada's research community as we collectively work toward the goal of ensuring that federal support for fundamental research is strategic and effective, and meets the needs of all Canadians,” she said.

U of T hosts conference on cities and the humanities and social sciences

Romi Levine — Wed, 09 Nov 2016 21:38:37 +0000

U of T hosts conference on cities and the humanities and social sciences

Romi Levine Wed, 11/09/2016 - 16:38

Cutline

Zahra Ebrahim, co-director of Doblin Canada, and Professor Stephen Toope, director of U of T’s Munk School of Global Affairs (photo by Romi Levine)

Romi Levine

Rachel Halpern

Author legacy

Romi Levine and Rachel Halpern

Topic

City & Culture

Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy

The Federation for Humanities and Social Sciences held its annual conference at Hart House with a focus on the relationship between cities and social sciences.

U of T President Meric Gertler told attendees that this relationship is essential to creating more inclusive and democratically engaged cities.

“From climate change to income inequality, from public health to missing and murdered Indigenous women, from understanding religious or cultural divides to finding means to bridge them, from global trade to public transit – in these and so many other important issues, the expertise and insight of humanists and social scientists is urgently needed,” Gertler said.

Stephen Toope, director of the ��Ƶ’s Munk School of Global Affairs and president of the Federation said he’s “fundamentally challenged” by the ideas brought forward at the conference, including those of keynote speaker Zahra Ebrahim, co-director of Doblin Canada.

She spoke about bringing new people into the city-building process.

“In every problem we seek to solve for, how are we driving the change-making efforts from the people we are serving?” said Ebrahim.

“What it requires is the fundamental rethink of our own orthodoxies of when people are invited to participate, when people are invited into the decision making process.”

Innovation was also a hot topic at the conference, with David Wolfe, professor of political science at ��Ƶ Mississauga and co-director of Munk's Innovation Policy Lab, stressing the importance of utilizing the skills of arts-based disciplines in emerging industries.

“I have long said to undergraduates that in a digital era where increasingly content is king and content is what is being driven across the global pipes of the internet, the single most important skill that contributes to that is writing,” said Wolfe.

“There’s nothing that I think we do in the social sciences and humanities that is more economically valuable than teaching people how to write well both analytically but more importantly creatively.”