We are keen to hear your story ideas so we can potentially tell a wider audience about the good things happening at the University. There are several proactive steps you can take in partnership with the Communications team:

• Are you happy to comment on your area of expertise in the media? Introduce yourself to our team so we can match you up with the right opportunities. Call (02) 9850 6766 or email communications@mq.edu.au and inform us of your area of expertise and current mobile number. We will not share your mobile number with media or others without your permission. This is for us to contact you swiftly as media opportunities arise that are relevant to you.

• Got a specific story you’d like to share?
  Spend five minutes filling in this simple briefing form to get us up to speed – make sure you notify us in plenty of time!

• Do you use a work-associated Twitter handle (eg, @yourname)? Let us know!
  Are you active on Twitter? Knowing your Twitter handle means we can ‘tag’ you in tweets from the popular Macquarie University account, so your work and media successes link back to you. Email mktg.socialmedia@mq.edu.au.

• Does your expertise cover science, technology or health science topics? Register as an expert in Scimex (Science Media Exchange)
  From the Australian Science Media Centre, Scimex is a website for journalists, scientists and research organisations. It offers upcoming news digests to science journalists, and profiles individuals in their field of expertise to encourage accurate reporting of science stories – register your profile now!

• Looking to upskill before speaking to media?
  The communications team, in collaboration with renowned broadcaster Richard Morecroft, offers free media training for staff who engage with media. Register for one of our 2016 seminars: Foundations of Media Engagement. Places are limited.

If you are interested in receiving regular updates on where Macquarie appears in the media, you can also sign up to our daily media report, sent directly to your inbox. Notify the Communications team to join the mailing list: communications@mq.edu.au.

Recent Macquarie stories

Professor David McAlpine, Director of Hearing Research at the Australian Hearing Hub, contributed the article ‘Just turn that music down’ in The Australian, commenting on the dangers to hearing during the music festival season. The opinion piece was widely mentioned across radio and television, and Professor McAlpine was interviewed on ABC News 24 and ABC radio, as well as 2GB’s Sydney Live program and 2UE.

Professor Culum Brown from the Department of Biological Sciences provided comment to The New York Times about his research which tracks the movements of sharks to gain insight into their social behaviour. The research found that sharks appear to seek the company of other sharks. Further coverage then appeared in the Australian Financial Review.

In no particular order,  here are some of our top news stories of 2015.

HRH Prince Harry comes to campus

On Thursday 7 May Macquarie University Hospital was honoured to host royalty on campus. His Royal Highness Prince Harry was on site to meet Lieutenant Alistair Spearing, a patient and British soldier who lost both of his legs in Afghanistan in 2011. National media coverage featuring surgeon Dr Munjed Al Muderis and Macquarie University Hospital CEO Carol Bryant, appeared across TV, radio, print and online.

Key coverage included a live appearance by Dr Al Muderis on Sunrise on Channel 7, as well as news coverage on Channel 9, Channel 7, Channel 10, and Sky News, ABC 702, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Daily Telegraph and more. In total 100+ Television, 100+ radio, and 20+ print and online pieces appeared over the week.

FIRST Robotics – inspiring students with STEM

In March FIRST Australia hosted its inaugural 2015 FIRST Australia Regional at the Sydney Sports Centre. Hundreds of students from around the Asia Pacific region took part in what became Australia’s largest robotics competition, with media coverage profiling the competition – sponsored by Macquarie University – and how it inspires students to engage with STEM in school and beyond.

Vice-Chancellor Professor S Bruce Dowton appeared on  ABC’s 7.30 program, which highlighted the competition’s social inclusion values to engage students with limited exposure to robotics. From the Department of Engineering, and as Director of FIRST Australia, Luan Heimlich spoke live on Weekend Sunrise and ABC1 News about the opportunities the competition gives to young people in STEM. Also from the Department of Engineering, Professor Michael Heimlich spoke to SBS TV, ABC Radio PM, and Start Up Smart magazine about the competition. Additional coverage included the Sydney Morning Herald, ABC 702, and 10+ regional print publications supporting their local teams who competed #OMGrobots.

Whale of a tale – mum leads the way

Recently Professor Rob Harcourt from the Department of Biological Sciences spoke to the media regarding his study that found that the migratory behaviour of endangered southern right whales, learned from a whale’s mother in its first year of life, has helped to shape the genetics and population recovery of this species.

Coverage appeared in The Australian, ABC online and Business Insider. Rob also spoke on ABC Hobart Afternoons about the research.

Lead astray – mining chemicals exposure lowers school scores

In February Professor Mark Taylor from the Department of Environmental Sciences spoke with several news media outlets about research which has indicated a correlation between childhood lead exposure and an increase in crime rates. The initial coverage appeared on ABC Catalyst, and Mark also wrote a Conversation piece to coincide with it airing. Following this, the story also attracted interest from the Canberra Times, EducationHQ, 2SER and several local news media.

Stressed bees leads to colony collapse

Dr Andrew Barron from the Department of Biological Sciences had his research on the reasons for bee colony collapse featured in the Sydney Morning Herald, ABC Online, LabOnline, Los Angeles Times, The Land, and the International Business Times. Dr Barron also spoke on ABC Ballarat Mornings and 774 ABC Melbourne Breakfast.

The research found that stressors such as pathogens, pesticides, and nutritional deficits forced young bees to forage earlier in their lifecycle, and experience a higher chance of early death.

Life-saving surgery without an incision – Gamma Knife

Dr Michael Izard and Dr John Fuller from Macquarie University Hospital featured in an exclusive story for Channel 7 on the first child to receive treatment by the Hospital’s Gamma Knife, which offers non-invasive brain surgery. To undergo life saving treatment, 11 year old Courtney Zeimer became the first beneficiary of Mr Doug Thompson’s Gamma Knife Fund, established last year. Coverage also appeared in the young patient’s local paper, the Cairns Post.

Frog species croaking faster than we thought

Frogs are facing mass extinction, with new research led by Dr John Alroy showing hundreds of species have been lost over three decades due to factors such as pollution and habitat destruction. If extinction rates continue unabated, hundreds more frog species could be lost within the next century.

Coverage of these findings appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Sydney Morning Herald, Age, ABC, Canberra Times, WA Today, the Scientific American, and the International Business Times.

Firies fundraising for MND research

Throughout September and October media outlets great and small reported the intention of Fire and Rescue NSW firefighters to climb the Sydney Tower Eye in full gear to raise money for Macquarie’s MND research centre.

Professor Dominic Rowe from the Motor Neurone Disease Research Centre was interviewed on ABC News as well as Channel 9′s Today program on the day of the event, as crowds came to cheer the firies on. For weeks in the lead up to, and following the event, regional media coverage also appeared in local newspapers all over NSW to support their local fire fighting team.

Open plan vs closed classrooms – what impact does acoustics have on children’s learning?

As the school year kicked off this year, PhD candidate Kiri Mealings from the Department of Linguistics and the Child Language Lab saw her research into the acoustics of open plan classrooms profiled by the Daily Telegraph and syndicated outlets: Open classes hit the sound barrier: Kindy kids unable to hear lessons. Following this she also had an article “Students struggle to hear teacher in new fad open-plan classrooms” published in The Conversation, and she spoke on several radio programs including 2GB, 2SER FM, ABC Newcastle Mornings and 666 ABC Canberra.

Now as the school year draws to a close, Kiri’s research has been resurrected in the media, featuring in the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and Yahoo! News Australia. Again, she was called upon to speak on radio, including ABC’s RN Drive. A great example of research tying into the news agenda.

So we named a lizard after Sir David Attenborough…

What do you do when you discover a new species of African flat lizard? You name it after world-famous naturalist Sir David Attenborough! That is exactly what Dr Martin Whiting from the Department of Biological Sciences did. The beautiful two-tone lizard, which is native to the Northern Cape, was named Platysaurus attenboroughi, which attracted media interest from the BBC,  IFL Science, Courier-Mail, CBS News, Zee News, and iol scitech.

This article was originally published by Adam Lockyer  and Michael Cohen on The Conversation, and shared as part of the Creative Commons.

Earlier this week, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop made some comments flagging a significant shift in Australia’s position on the Assad regime in Syria.

According to Bishop, if the Assad regime were to be removed or collapse, it would create a vacuum that could be filled by “an even more diabolical presence”. As a consequence, Australia’s position is now that all options should be considered.

Also this week, Russian warplanes and helicopter gunships launched their first airstrikes on rebel-held positions inside Syria. So are these two events in any way linked?

The short answer is yes, but it’s a complicated picture.

Shorter term
For the “yes” side, Russian airstrikes were expected. There were signs for several weeks that Russia was preparing to dramatically increase its involvement in the Syrian conflict.

Earlier this month, there were reports of Russians delivering prefabricated housing for about 1000 people. This led analysts to speculate that Russia was about to commit its own air defence units and modern combat aircraft.

Russia’s principal objective is to ensure that it continues to wield influence in post-civil war Syria. Syria is Russia’s last remaining ally in the Middle East.

But Russian President Vladimir Putin’s support of his Syrian counterpart, Bashar al-Assad, is not unconditional. A top diplomat reported that, in 2012 – when Assad’s hold on power was considered tenuous – Russian diplomats approached the US, France and Britain with a peace plan that would have seen Assad removed from power.

What is important to Russia is that it continues to exercise influence within Syria. The vessel it uses to achieve this is negotiable.

Western countries dismissed Russian overtures because they believed that the Assad regime would be overthrown in a matter of weeks. But, in 2015, Russia will not easily abandon a resurgent Assad.

The strength of both Assad and Islamic State (IS) mean that there are two avenues to a quick end of the civil war:

1. There could be a negotiated settlement between Assad, IS, and the more minor players, which formalises the status quo. This is unacceptable to the West and others who view IS as a serious security threat.
2. The foreign powers can throw their weight behind the Assad regime and help it defeat IS. This now may be the better of two bad options.

Also on the “yes” side is Australia wanting to make clear to the Russians that the RAAF missions over Syria are not targeting Assad. If Russian air defence units and warplanes believe that Australian aircraft are working against the Assad regime, the airspace over Syria might become dramatically more dangerous for Australia’s pilots.

Longer term
There are three significant points to make on the “more to it” side of the ledger.

First, the change flagged by Bishop would align Australian diplomacy with its military actions. There is no denying the Assad regime’s barbarity and the horrific 240,000 deaths that the Syrian civil war has now produced.

But, international relations often offer only bad options, and we must select the least worst policy. The painful reality is that however undesirable Assad is, his regime is better for local and regional stability than no government. And we must conclude from a few years of failed diplomacy that any power-sharing arrangement between Syria’s disparate ethnic groups would most likely have collapsed. This could have led to a fierce civil war, like that which took place in Iraq in 2005 and 2006.

The only thing worse than an Assad government would likely be an IS government. There is good reason to expect that this would follow Assad’s imminent departure.

Second, Bishop’s changing position might be suggestive of a larger paradigm shift in Australian foreign policy. The Abbott government exhibited the neoconservative tendency to categorise actors into either liberal democracies or threats to liberal democracy.

Tony Abbott was willing – and sometimes even eager – to confront perceived challenges to liberal democracy, whether it was IS in the Middle East or Russia in Ukraine. It is difficult to imagine the Abbott government negotiating with Putin or Assad on Syria’s post-war governance, even when such diplomacy might save lives.

The suggestion that new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull may be willing to contemplate a post-civil war political arrangement that includes the continuation of Russian influence and a place for Assad’s Ba’athist Party might be a sign of Turnbull-Bishop pragmatism.

Finally, it might be a sign that Australia may at last be developing a strategy in Syria. Despite its brutality, the Assad regime does have a constituency in Syria. Without a support base, the regime would have folded like a paper tiger within the war’s opening weeks. Its constituency includes the Alawite sect, some Shi’a groups, and other minorities including some Christian groups who fear life under IS even more than Assad.

These groups’ interests will need to be represented in post-civil war Syria.

Regardless of the reasons, though, the real winners this week in international diplomacy have been Assad and Putin.

Catch up on recent contributions to The Conversation from other Macquarie authors.

It isn’t easy being green

Coverage appeared initially in the Sydney Morning Herald, and was quickly syndicated throughout the Fairfax network and picked up by radio programs and international outlets alike. Coverage appeared in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the International Business Times and the  Scientific American to name a few.

Mining towns’ dirty secret
Research led by Professor Mark Taylor from the Department of Environmental Sciences featured in numerous media outlets, as the findings suggest that high levels of toxic metals, found in and near mining towns, could be negatively influencing the neurological development of children in these regions.

Professor Taylor coincided the release of his research with an article in The Conversation. Coverage also appeared in  ABC News 24 the Sydney Morning Herald, the Canberra Times, ABC Broken Hill, 2SERFM, and the International Business Times Australia, among others.

Firefighters – fighting fire and Motor Neurone Disease (MND)
Recently the firefighters from Fire and Rescue NSW took part in a fundraising race to climb all 1504 stairs (98 floors) of Sydney Tower, each carrying an additional 20kg of gear. All money raised will support the Motor Neurone Disease Research Centre at Macquarie, with more than $172,500 raised to date.

The feat was captured on Channel 7’s Weekend Sunrise, who attended the event and assisted the team with raising awareness of MND, a disease from which two Australians die every day.

It’s not too late to donate! For more information or to show your support visit the ‘Firefighters climb for Motor Neurone Disease’ Everyday Hero fundraising page.

This article was originally published by Carl Rhodes  on The Conversation, and shared as part of the Creative Commons.

“As far as Volkswagen Group is concerned, bearing its social responsibility has long been at the heart of our corporate culture.”

So says the company’s official statement of sustainability and responsibility. “Resource conservation” and “climate protection” are touted as values that VW has integrated into its business.

But those values have turned out to be a sham, after Volkswagen was caught out rigging 11 million VW, Audi, Skoda and other vehicles with software to meet US fuel emission standards under test conditions, only to release up to 4,000% of the nitrogen oxide allowed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in normal driving.

Within days of the EPA releasing its report on September 18, the media went into overdrive about VW’s transgressions. “Volkswagen in meltdown after faked diesel tests” declared the Times in the UK. “Cheating and outrage” led the New York Times.

Central to the media coverage has been a sense of moral outrage and indignation. Business ethics experts have suggested the behaviour of VW’s engineers is “shocking”, while VW has been criticised for its “unethical culture”.

But from the perspective of the true corporate logic that is veiled by business ethics, VW only did one thing wrong. It got caught. And by getting caught it has shattered the fragile illusion that powerful corporations can have any real concern with ethics or responsibility.

Other major corporate scandals
Despite the outrage at VW, it is just the most recent in a long line of corporate scandals ranging from conniving fraud, to environmental devastation, to abuse of workers’ rights. Some companies, such as Enron and Lehman Brothers, did not survive. Others, like BP and Dow Chemicals, live on.

Dead or alive, the scandalised corporation is rebuked for its lack of ethics and its failure to take responsibility. The proposed solution is to re-inject a healthy dose of ethics into the heart of a company’s culture. But is this simple diagnosis really tenable?

The question that fails to be asked is why would anyone accept that corporations could possibly be responsible and ethical in the first place? Is expecting corporations to take responsibility for social outcomes akin to asking the cat to guard the cream?

What we can learn from the goings-on at VW is not that corporations can or should be more ethical, but that ethics is not something that can reasonably be expected to come from the inside corporations. How many corporate scandals do we need before even the potential for ethical legitimacy in a corporation is hollowed out to its core?

The increasing popularity of business ethics and corporate social responsibility over the past 30 years has happened at the same time as the colossal growth of global corporate power. Ours is a time where the share of world trade accounted for by transnational corporations has swelled to 80%, and where more than half of the world’s biggest economies are corporations rather than countries.

This has also been an era of massive deregulation of the global markets in which corporations play, as well as the privatisation (that is corporatisation) of previously public enterprises. Business ethics is central to this. It is heralded as a form of corporate self-regulation that replaces the need for state interference into business activities.

If there was ever a doctrine of “might is right” it is contemporary business ethics. Volkswagen, as the world’s largest auto manufacturer, is no exception.

The trick is simple. First, you proclaim your own ethical credentials with a slick corporate social responsibility program propped up by a range of awards in CSR, sustainability etc. Second, you work to shield yourself from external interference on the basis of your self-stated ethical credibility. Third, cloaked in ethics, you carry on with any ruthless, unscrupulous, damaging and deceitful activities that will further your own pursuit of power.

The fallout
Caught red-handed, the future of VW has been rendered unclear. At best its reputation is in tatters, and worst its continued existence is in question. The stakes are high. The livelihood of the almost 600,000 people employed by VW across the world could be in jeopardy. A third of the company’s market value was wiped out in less than a week. Trust in the entire German manufacturing sector has been brought into question. CEO Martin Winterkorn resigned, and is now facing criminal investigation.

But the news is not all bad. The public outcry over Volkswagen’s highly organised and technically proficient approach to deceiving both its customers and regulators at the expense of the environment is a welcome sign that corporate power does have limits. These limits are not found in any leather upholstered corporate social responsibility office or the self-congratulatory idolatry of the business ethics awards ceremony. Instead, they are located in the realm of a democratic society where power can be questioned, protested and held to account.

At these limits we find a very different form of ethics for business. It is an ethics that is appalled by the excessive abuse of corporate power for the purpose of self-interest. It is an ethics that arises in the democratic sphere as people and the institutions that represent them contest corporate power. It is an ethics that seeks to disturb and resist the power, privilege, arrogance, and the wanton disregard for people’s lives that time and time again characterises corporate behaviour.

In the last weeks of September, VW has experienced the true potential of ethics in business. The potential for society to hold the powerful to account for their actions. What the VW scandal shows is that business ethics is far too important to be left in the hands of powerful self-interested corporations.

Catch up on recent contributions to The Conversation from other Macquarie authors.

With only a week to go, this year’s event has already drawn significant interest from staff and students alike eager to discuss learning and teaching best practices and innovation.

Dr Theresa Winchester-Seeto, Head Curriculum and Academic Practice Group, Learning and Teaching Centre, says all who attend will leave with new ideas to implement in their own areas.

“Our theme ‘Connect More’ offers staff the chance to see panel discussions, take part in interactive sessions and hear from a number of keynote speakers ,” says Dr Winchester-Seeto. “As in previous years, Learning and Teaching Week 2015 is about celebrating our successes and sharing these with everyone.”

Learning and Teaching Week highlights

Launch of the Learning and Teaching White Paper
A topic of great discussion over the past few months, the Learning and Teaching Strategy White Paper is the blueprint for how we can build on Macquarie’s tradition of excellent learning and teaching and deepen our connections with industry and community partners.

When: Monday 14 September
Time: 9.30am – 10.30am
Where: T1, Building C5C

Register now

Employability – the Student and Partner Perspective
Our students study at Macquarie because they believe they will find better jobs than if they go straight into the workforce. There are suggestions that employers are focused on graduate skills, attributes and professional orientation. This Keynote Panel Discussion will see both students and employers share their thoughts on this topic.

When: Monday 14 September
Time: 1.15pm – 2.45pm
Where: C5C Forum

Register now

Collaborative Innovation: Digital Transformation through Stronger Human Network
Named as one of Australia’s most influential women in 2014, Pia Waugh will share her views on the importance of tech culture. Pia will examine the importance of learning to build on the shoulders of giants rather than continually reinventing the world and how to collaborate more effectively by aligning common motivations. Her talk will also consider the importance of designing systems and information in a modular way so others can build on this knowledge and innovate.

When: Tuesday 15 September
Time: 10.30am – 12pm
Where: C5C Forum

Register now

Panel: The Student Voice
Hear our Merit Scholars give a honest and candid insight into their learning experience at Macquarie. This is an opportunity to ask questions about what they feel works and doesn’t work at Macquarie.

When: Tuesday 15 September
Time: 2.15pm – 3.15pm
Where: C5C Forum

Register now

The Big History MOOC – a Panel Discussion with Professor David Christian
Professor Christian is the man behind the Bill Gates-backed Big History Project. Join Professor Christian’s discussion on how the forthcoming Big History MOOC was developed and future plans to build on the Big History experience.

When: Wednesday 16 September
Time: 11.30am – 12.30pm
Where: C5C Forum

Register now

Nano presentations
Nanos are a snapshot into research and study conducted by staff across campus, and offer a chance to find out what interesting outcomes have been made.

When: Wednesday 16 September
Time: 12.30pm – 1.30pm
Where: Room 120 and 180, Building E5A

View the event program for the full list of Nano presentations

Wearable Technologies and Education – Preparing for a Hyper-Connected Future
Rob Manson’s presentation is guaranteed to draw a crowd from our community eager to discover what the latest technology trend is that’s changing the way we learn. As founder of buildAR, Rob is no stranger to Macquarie, having been part of the Wearable Technologies Summit held on campus last November.

When: Thursday 17 September
Time: 9am – 11 am
Where: C5C Forum

Register now

3-Minute Thesis Competition Final
Discover who will take this year’s honours, as our top students battle it out to represent Macquarie at the national competition in October.

When: Thursday 17 September
Time: 11.30am – 1pm
Where: Macquarie Theatre

Registration not required

Poster Sessions, lunch and after party
Learning and Teaching Week will wrap in 2015 with the always popular Poster Session event. Learn more about the studies conducted during the past year, including a project by Lois MacCullagh which looked at the challenges students with dyslexia face while studying.

When: Thursday 17 September
Time: 1pm – 3pm
Where: Macquarie Theatre Foyer

Register now

View the full Learning and Teaching Week 2015 program

“The Web Transformation Project will offer a substantially enhanced user experience of our digital space for our key audiences,” says Web Project Director Richard Powell. “With the help of many across campus we’ve accomplished a great deal but there is still much to do before we launch.”

Rich explains the long-term scope of the project encompass both the staff.mq.edu.au and students.mq.edu.au sites, however the October launch will only reveal our public site mq.edu.au.

“Content from our existing site has now been migrated to the new 6000-page website,” says Rich. “Last week we revealed the skeleton site to content owners to give them a first look at how the site is structured.”

Rich says given the significant number of public-facing pages in scope, content owners will be working tirelessly in the next week to make sure their content has successfully been migrated.

“We believe we’ve captured everyone who has a public-facing page, but if a page owner thinks they may have been missed, we need them to contact us as soon as possible,” says Rich.

Instructions for content owners on how to review content

• Clear instructions on what you need to do before 24 September are available on the Web Transformation Project wiki.
• It is recommended you subscribe to updates as ALL future instructions will be provided there.

Think you’ve been missed?

• Contact the Web Transformation Project team at web.project@mq.edu.au
• Contact your relevant Faculty Web Officer.

Information session
Staff are welcome to join the Web Transformation Project team to learn more about the process for the project in the lead-up to the 12 October launch.

Got a question for the team? Submit your question now.

When: Tuesday 1 September
Time: From 4pm
Where: T2, Building E7B

Keep up-to-date
This Week will provide weekly updates until the site launch on Monday 12 October.

This article was originally published by Nathan Hart on The Conversation, and shared as part of the Creative Commons.

Australian surfer Mick Fanning’s decision to abandon a yellow surfboard in favour of one with more black and blue colouring has raised the question of how sharks perceive colour.

His decision, ahead of the start of the Billabong Pro surfing competition in Tahiti, follows his recent encounter with a shark while surfing at Jeffreys Bay in South Africa.

Given the number of people that swim, surf, paddle and dive in the ocean all year round, such incidents are fortunately very rare. But the reasons why sharks interact with – and sometimes attack – humans are unclear, which makes prevention of such incidents a challenge.

Sharks possess an impressive array of senses, including an acute sense of smell, hearing based on internal ears as well as a lateral line sensitive to low frequency water vibrations, and even the ability to detect the tiny electric fields generated by other living organisms.

But vision is likely to be the critical sense in the moments immediately prior to an attack, especially for fast moving pelagic sharks such as the great white shark.

Experimenting with colour
In the 1960s and 1970s, the United States Office of Naval Research funded a large program of research into shark sensory biology with the goal of finding effective shark deterrent strategies for service personnel that found themselves adrift in the ocean.

One of the findings of this research was that the colour of an object floating in the water had a strong influence on the likelihood that a shark would approach and interact with it. Highly reflective silvery and white objects were more likely to attract bull sharks and tiger sharks than blue or black objects.

A subsequent study looked at life vests and infant flotation devices (IFD) of the kind used by commercial airlines and found that blue sharks and mako sharks readily attacked child dummies dressed in the standard bright yellow life vests, but tended to ignore dummies dressed in black life vests or housed within a black IFD.

These findings gave rise to the saying “yum yum yellow” and created a survival conundrum: high contrast colours that would better enable a person adrift in the water to be spotted by rescuers were also more likely to provoke a shark attack.

Recent research suggests that most or all sharks are completely colour-blind. They lack the basic neural machinery in the retina that is required to compare objects on the basis of their spectral reflectance (i.e. colour vision) and instead can only make discriminations based on brightness differences.

Shades of grey
Thus, sharks see the underwater world in shades of grey and, rather than being attracted to a particular colour, they are probably attracted to what humans think of as yellow simply because it is a bright object against the darker background of the water.

Whether or not Mick Fanning’s decision to swap his yellow board for a blue or black one will actually reduce his risk of shark attack is unclear.

The lower absolute reflectance (and thus brightness contrast) of a darker-coloured board may well be less attractive to a shark approaching from the side, but a shark approaching directly from below will see the surfboard as a dark silhouette against the sky regardless of the colour of the board.

Moreover, some highly visible, high contrast patterns may in fact act as useful warning signals that might deter sharks. For example, there are reports in the literature that some (but not all) species of shark tend to avoid venomous black and white-banded sea snakes.

Watersports apparel that exploits these contrasting visual deterrent strategies—conspicuousness versus camouflage—are currently available. For example, there are camouflage wetsuits for SCUBA divers that may help to make the wearer appear less visible or less attractive to a curious shark.

Vision-based shark deterrent options for surfers are perhaps more limited because of the difficulty in camouflaging a surface object against the bright sky. But we are currently researching options for surfboard camouflage that include reducing the contrast of the surfboard’s silhouette by illuminating the underside of the surfboard with bright LED lights, a strategy known as counter-illumination that is employed by many aquatic animals to avoid detection by predators.

For the moment, surfers can wear a well-publicised electronic shark deterrent device that has been shown by us and others to be effective in deterring several different species of sharks.

There are also other simple ways to reduce the risk of a negative interaction with a shark.

1. Avoid entering the water at dawn or dusk when many species of shark are hunting more actively, and when the dim light conditions may make it more likely for a shark to mistake a human for its usual prey.
2. Avoid swimming or surfing near seal colonies where sharks may wait for an opportunity to ambush seals as they head out to sea.
3. Avoid entering the water when there are large schools of baitfish present or where there are natural (e.g. a whale carcass) or artificial (e.g. fish frames) sources of animal waste that might attract sharks.
4. Do not enter the water (or leave immediately) if you have a wound that is discharging blood.
5. Remember that activities such as spear fishing may carry a significantly higher risk of triggering a shark attack.

Listening to advice from recognised authorities such as the Department of Fisheries and surf lifesavers is paramount. Where possible, swim between the flags where there are more people and better surveillance.

At the end of the day, it is important to remember that shark attacks are still very rare and some simple precautions will ensure continued safe use of the ocean.

Catch up on recent contributions to The Conversation from other Macquarie authors.

This article was originally published by Kathy Cologon on The Conversation, and shared as part of the Creative Commons.

Recent articles on The Conversation and in The Guardian question whether inclusive education can do more harm than good – but neither article presents examples of inclusion. Rather, they present tragic examples of exclusion that are claimed to be inclusion-not-working.

What does ‘inclusion’ really mean?
There seems to be a lot of confusion and misinformation about what inclusion actually means. Inclusive education involves the full inclusion of all children. No children are segregated.

Supports for inclusion are embedded within everyday practices. If aides are employed they circulate around the classroom, or spend time assisting the teacher and making adaptations to materials, rather than being off in a corner with one particular child.

There are no separate areas or curricula for children who experience disability. All children are supported to be involved in all aspects of learning.

At one school I visited in my research, a young boy with Down syndrome was learning a modified version of sign language, which supplemented his spoken language, with the rest of his class.

His teachers completed a one-day keyword sign workshop at the start of the year. His teacher introduced a unit on Auslan (Australian sign language) where all of the students learn about Auslan and learn new signs together each week.

Learning sign language in this way did not single him out. However, it did create the opportunity for him to share his knowledge with his peers and support their learning, while also supporting him in his communication.

This example provides only one snapshot of inclusion within a classroom experience, but it illustrates some key elements of inclusion in action. The child in this example participates in the classroom experiences with the other children in the class, but with supports and adaptations as needed (for him and his peers).

That each child has individual differences is not ignored. It is embraced and valued as what makes each person unique. The goal is not to make any child “normal”, but rather to grow and learn together.

The child who experiences disability could be sitting in the same classroom, separate to his peers, with an aide who may or may not be using sign language. However, this would not be inclusion – this would be exclusion.

Common misunderstandings of inclusion
Common misunderstandings of inclusion relate to (incorrectly) considering integration and inclusion to be synonyms; viewing inclusion as simply the presence of a child who is labelled “disabled” or “different” in a mainstream setting; thinking that inclusion is only about some people (instead of about everyone); and viewing inclusion as a process of assimilation.

These misunderstandings of inclusion lead to macro or micro exclusion, which is sometimes mistaken for – or misappropriated as – inclusion. Macro exclusion is where a child is segregated into a separate classroom, unit, or school.

Micro exclusion is where, for example, a child is enrolled in a mainstream setting, but is segregated into a separate area of the classroom or school for all or part of the day; where a child is only permitted to attend for part of the day; present but not participating in the activities along with the other children in the setting; or present but viewed as a burden and not an equally valued member of the class or setting.

While the recent article on The Conversation claims to explore research on inclusive education, studies cited in that article explicitly represent examples of macro or micro exclusion. It is alarmingly common in research and practice for examples of exclusion (micro and macro) to be reported as being about inclusion.

The journey from full segregation to inclusion
Special education commenced (gradually in the 1900s) as a then-revolutionary idea that children who experience disability can and should receive some form of education.

In the main, this was an important first step towards social justice for children who experience disability, who were previously routinely denied any formal education at all (albeit with some exceptions).

Following this commencement of formal education for children who experience disability, the 1960s and 1970s saw the development of ideas of “normalisation” and “integration”, as questions began to be raised about whether segregation was actually the best approach to education.

The 1992 Disability Discrimination Act made it unlawful for any setting to discriminate against a person on the basis of disability (though with some caveats). This paved the way for much greater integration and, eventually, for inclusion.

Since then, philosophical arguments and relevant research progressed from the initial recognition that children who experience disability can and should receive some form of education to the idea that children are of equal value; that the education of all children (including children labelled disabled) should be of high quality; and, therefore, that education should be inclusive.

Inclusive education vs special schools
Contrary to what could logically be expected (given the higher teacher-to-student ratios and the special education training for teachers in special schools), there is no evidence that special schools have any benefits over mainstream schools.

Inclusive education has been found to have equal or better outcomes for all children – not just for children who experience disability. This includes better academic and social outcomes.

It is common for parents and teachers to worry that the inclusion of a child who experiences disability will lower the standard of education for children who do not experience disability. However, research clearly demonstrates that this is not the case.

By contrast, along with myriad other benefits of inclusion (including social and communication development and more positive understandings of the self), inclusive teachers engage with all children more frequently and at a higher cognitive level, with important benefits to all.

Frequent claiming of micro (and even macro) exclusion as inclusion creates significant barriers to, and confusion about, inclusion. Lack of understanding of what inclusion is, and subsequent unwarranted fear of inclusion, are also significant barriers.

Inclusive education involves supporting each child in belonging, participating, and accessing ongoing opportunities, being recognised and valued for the contribution that he or she makes, and flourishing.

Catch up on recent contributions to The Conversation from other Macquarie authors.

This article was originally published by Dale Tweedie and David Wild  on The Conversation, and shared as part of the Creative Commons.

The news that global professional services firm Accenture is abandoning annual performance reviews has been greeted with accolades and some relief. Critics are optimistic that this is the beginning of the end for a costly and anxiety-inducing annual workplace ritual.

Yet some caution is required before celebrating, because the end of the annual performance review is not necessarily the end of the problems these reviews can induce.

Performance evaluations of some kind occur constantly. In heavily monitored workplaces like some call centres, workers’ performance is continually assessed by monitoring software. But even in less intrusive workplaces, your performance is being frequently observed and judged in multiple ways.

What is occurring is not the end of performance review but a change in how it occurs. Companies abandoning formal annual reviews have suggested various alternatives, from project-based reviews, to using simpler performance indicators, to the ominous sounding “continuous appraisal”.

But how confident can we be that new performance appraisals will improve on the old?

The veneer of objectivity
Many criticisms of annual performance reviews could equally apply to almost any performance evaluation process.

One point performance review critics like Christophe Dejours make is that much of what we do at work cannot be properly measured. Even the most astute managers will miss hours we spend in the office, and the innovations, relationships and the compromises we make to keep our organisations going. Other parts of work are almost permanently hidden from public view. Consider the odd experience of getting our best work ideas in the shower, or waking in the early hours of dawn in a cold sweat over a work dilemma. These experiences reveal how much our time, thoughts and emotions continue to work outside the office. What gets measured is only a small part of what we put into our jobs.

When it comes to judging performance, performance appraisal research provides a long list of actual and potential biases. These include cognitive biases like the “halo effect”, where a manager’s judgement about one of a person’s characteristics distorts perception of all the others; or the flattening “Veblen effect”, named after a distinguished professor who allegedly gave all his students a C. They also include entrenched social biases, such as women being stereotyped as less able to exercise authority. Given the extensive catalogue of biases, it is remarkable that annual formal performance reviews have survived for so long.

Of course, many judgements at work are subjective. But performance appraisal systems can make these judgements appear objective. Consequently, part of workers’ anxiety over performance measurement can be traced to how performance appraisals can give politicised or partial judgements a veneer of legitimacy in their organisations.

Another recurrent problem is evaluating individual performance in team-based workplaces. Employers invariably value team players, yet typically evaluate and reward individual performance. One intellectual root of individual performance management is an idea popularised by orthodox economics, which is that all workers make a distinctive contribution to production – their “marginal productivity” – that can and should be individually rewarded. But it is far from clear that this is possible in modern workplaces.

Finally, measurement can distort incentives. The flipside to the adage that “what gets measured gets done” is that important tasks that are not measured are often neglected. For example, there is increasing concern that relentless measurement of how many articles academics publish in prestigious journals undermines other crucial university activities, like quality teaching and conducting lower status research that nonetheless matters to local communities.

Where to now?
These problems are not solved by ignoring the performance question. Most people care about their work, and value being recognised when they do well.

But the problems with performance appraisal show that replacing annual reviews with more regular or flexible systems does not necessarily get to the heart of the issue, which is how to accurately and fairly evaluate what people contribute.

It is worth seriously considering whether we need systems of performance review at all. We all invariably judge other people’s performance; equally invariably, our judgements are often flawed. When do performance review processes reduce our inevitable biases, and when are they simply a costly and fraught method of reproducing them?

If organisations do retain formal performance measurement, there are no easy answers to what these systems should look like. But given the biases of performance measurement, and their emotional as well as financial costs, a good start would be to acknowledge they are partial and fallible. And to genuinely invite discussion and reflection, rather than issue a verdict.

Replacing annual reviews with new processes might be a step in this direction. But unless the new procedures work to address the flaws of the old, they could just as easily get in the way.

Catch up on recent contributions to The Conversation from other Macquarie authors.