I am a fresh graduate of Bachelor of Information Technology.
Recently, I found-out a Research concentration which is “Social Cognition and Human-Robot Interaction (S4HRI)”.

I have an interest to learn about robotics, which the future is based on, and I have some knowledge about psychology, but I am afraid that if I will complete my graduate studies in S4HRI, so I should go deeply with psychology and know more about cognitive science, where I don’t know if I will succeed in this field and like it or not.

From your opinion, is it a good step to complete in Social Cognition and Human-Robot Interaction fields and merge the technology with psychology, or focus on technology only?

Also, if you knew a technique to help me decide which concentration I have to choose based on my interests so I will be much thankful to you.

I am a fresh graduate of Bachelor of Information Technology.
Recently, I found-out a Research concentration which is “Social Cognition and Human-Robot Interaction (S4HRI)”.

I have an interest to learn about Robotics, which the future is based on it, and I have some knowledge about Psychology, but I am afraid that If I will complete my graduate studies in S4HRI, so I should go deeply with Psychology and know more about Cognitive science, where I don’t know if I will succeed in this field and like it or not.

From your opinion, is it a good step to complete in Social Cognition and Human-Robot Interaction field and merge the Technology with the Psychology, or focus on Technology field only?

Also, if you knew a technique to help me decide which concentration I have to choose based on my interests so I will be much thankful to you.

I met up with a potential supervisor two weeks ago and they were very keen on my topic (on literature). They took a hard copy of my draft proposal to read and told me I will be contacted in a week. However it has been two weeks and I have not heard anything. I have sent a follow up email saying if my proposal is not appropriate, I would be happy to start from scratch again. There is no reply to that as well.

I am not sure what to do. If the proposal isn’t ok is it not professional to email and let me know? Given the initial enthusiasm of the supervisor and the silence since they took my draft, should I believe my proposal must be horribly wrong and must be binned?

If someone majors in political science or international relations or history, what do they end up actually doing as a career?

I’ve found numerous sites that give the obvious answers what they can do, but to date no site that says what they actual do.

It’s all fine and dandy thinking that an International Studies degree will prepare you for a career as a diplomat, but if 95% of graduates end up selling life insurance, or filling out form 2773A-11 for some bureaucracy, I may want to make a different set of choices.

I have a bit of a technical question about constructing narrative while writing as a historian (I guess it also applies to other humanities).

This never really occurred to me as an issue during undergrad and graduate school while writing my thesis, but I have noticed now as I revise my thesis that at times I write sentences that contain both the factual events contained in the primary source I cite in the footnote at the end of the sentence and my interpretation of the source I cite.

For example, if I describe the relation between Event A and Event B, I might first describe the general context. Then follows Sentence A that describes Event A and cites Source A describing Event A. Then follows Sentence B that says:

In reaction (to Event A), Event B happened⁴.

Where Footnote 4 describes Event B.

My question about this example is about the two words “in reaction”. The source I cite at the end of Sentence B does only describe Event B. I derive the connection between the two events and that Event B is a reaction to Event A from the general context. Thus “in reaction” is my interpretation of the causality between the two events.

Now if one is really squeamish I guess one could say that by not separating “in reaction” from Sentence B I mix interpretation and factual evidence and some readers could be misled that the source I cite at the end of Sentence B also includes that Event B happened in reaction to Event A.

The same kind of situation seems to happen at times in my writing when I have a sentence that is built like this:

[Interpretation], [relative clause with factual evidence] [Footnote with evidence for events/facts in relative clause].

My question is whether this style of writing is acceptable at all? It certainly does not occur often in my writing, but it does at times. No one who has read my writing really has ever said anything about this. Although it is hard to check the writing of other historians with regards to this question, as I do not have the sources to check in most cases, I have noticed that other historians do this kind of mixing at times as well (some even seem to simply cite sources at the end of paragraphs that clearly contain both factual statements and interpretation). I also wonder what having to interrupt sentences to clearly separate interpretation and facts all the time would do to the flow of the narrative.

Still this is a concern now, and I would like to know how to approach this dilemma. Is there a convention or best practice? Is mixing interpretation and evidence acceptable, is it sloppy writing or is it completely unacceptable?

Crosspost on Reddit

I am a full prof in the humanities at a small liberal arts college in rural America. I am relishing my sabbatical in a European country with a flourishing economy and appealing culture. I do not want to return home. I travel abroad every summer and so do not attribute my thoughts about a major move to reverse culture shock. I mainly want to stay for the benefit of my children where here they can get a better education and have better opportunities. There are currently no jobs in my field that I have seen advertised in the country where we are living. I have also been putting the word out to my academic contacts here that I want to stay, but so far I haven’t heard about any job opportunities. I’m not certain I could compete for jobs when they come up given that I have devoted my career thus far to teaching and service, and I’m not a newly minted PhD. I have pubs and am doing research, but not on the level of what I’d have had I been at a research institution all these years. While I’m passionate about teaching, I’m far from retirement age and am prepared to make a career change. How can I channel my training and work experience to something that would be of interest to a European employer (or an employer at a better city in the US to at least get us out of our rural community)?? TIA.

I currently hold a bachelors in Computer science and a masters in Art History. I really want to combine the two and I know of Digital Humanities but I’m not completely aware of where Digital Humanists could work besides Museums, libraries, etc. and even at museums and the such, I imagine that the demand for Digital humanists isn’t THAT large either. Does anyone have any idea of how I could combine art history and computer science and what kind of places could I work in? If I do go into digital humanities, do you think I’d be expected to work in cultural settings or could I still get a job at a purely science industry? Any response will be greatly appreciated!

I seem to be a bit stuck here. I am reading quite a lot, but I cannot find a topic to write about, which is original and which I could then publish as a paper. I am in the Humanities, so it’s basically just about reading, reading, reading (so no research in a lab or something).

Are there strategies for this? What would you recommend a young scholar does to publish more and find interesting things to write about?

PS: I know that this question will not receive an entirely objective answer, but there might still be some proven strategies or insights that could alleviate some concerns.

I recently sat down with a trusted confidant and went over my statement of purpose and personal statement. Although the overall message and commentary was positive, what I realized was that I needed to metaphorically pull myself from the sky and back to earth. In other words, a head-shrinking was in order. My topics were far too lofty to be accomplished in half a decade.

As I continue to procrastinate from writing by asking this question, I wonder how can one ground themselves as they move forward in their graduate education and post-graduate career.

In times past, I’ve came across a blog post by a computer scientist who has made great work into the field of medicine and bioinformatics despite not having a medical background, all in effort of finding a diagnosis and cure for his child’s disease. But I cannot find it.

But what the post didn’t address was to integrate the equivalent of a speed governor into the brain engine on a day to day basis.

How do we keep ourselves humble as researchers and intellectuals?

I recently sat down with a trusted confidant and went over my statement of purpose and personal statement. Although the overall message and commentary was positive, what I realized was that I needed to metaphorically pull myself from the sky and back to earth. In other words, a head-shrinking was in order. My topics were far too lofty to be accomplished in half a decade.

As I continue to procrastinate from writing by asking this question, I wonder how can one ground themselves as they move forward in their graduate education and post-graduate career.

In times past, I’ve came across a blog post by a computer scientist who has made great work into the field of medicine and bioinformatics despite not having a medical background, all in effort of finding a diagnosis and cure for his child’s disease. But I cannot find it.

But what the post didn’t address was to integrate the equivalent of a speed governor into the brain engine on a day to day basis.

How do we keep ourselves humble as researchers and intellectuals?