I applied for a job as a social science advisor at DSIT, I've just heard that I didn't pass the sift and scored a 4 based on my personal statement. Would anyone be able to give me some feedback on my personal statement, as I am a little disheartened I haven't progressed further.
Throughout my career, I have researched the impacts of misinformation on wider society. In my Bachelor’s, I investigated the role of opinion leaders such as Joe Rogan, shaping the public discourse around COVID-19 vaccines through his podcast, and how that proliferated throughout social media platforms. During my Master’s I conducted a digital ethnography, immersing myself in Andrew Tate’s fan networks to see how they re-congregate after he was deplatformed, and found that deplatforming is too blunt of a tool to sufficiently curb his impact as he continued to fuel misinformation around events such as the Southport attack. I am ready to put this research into practice, and deeply understand how vital social science research is to understanding the multi-faceted harms of misinformation.
As a Research Assistant investigating hate speech, I communicated the salient issues that we are encountering in our project to non-specialist audiences. Recently, I attended the How-to-Build-Peace Conference where I presented our findings to a non-academic audience. I presented our research and the issues that arise when defining hate speech, how hate speech can look when it is intended to bodyshame, and the use of GIFs to proliferate hate speech. This led to nuanced discussions over the concept of hate speech and the cultural differences within Spain, Germany and the Netherlands, demonstrating my ability to communicate complex analysis in a clear and coherent way. Through networking, I was introduced to the concept of a polarisation footprint to measure disinformation on social media platforms, and this concept will be used by the Spanish government to sanction platforms fuelling division. Thus, I can apply SBS research to real world settings, as our research will inform media outlets how to moderate hate speech occurring on their sites.
Additionally, in this role it has affirmed my ability to establish strong working relationships with a range of policy and analytical colleagues. Currently, I am working with other academic colleagues, and with external civil society organisations, who have experience drafting policy on hate speech in Germany. I worked together to draft a list of key accounts targeted by hate in Germany, and organised meetings to discuss how our project has been progressing, communicating timelines for the number of posts to be annotated, demonstrating my interpersonal skills.
I am working on a literature review to summarise the current literature on the definition of hate speech. Requiring systematic synthesis across competing theoretical frameworks, I created a work schedule with my colleagues and allocated the different subject areas to each of us based on our skillsets. I organised this schedule around the project deliverables and the strengths of my colleagues. A key challenge was ensuring our review made a novel contribution to the field, after a similar article was published mid-project. Rather than delay our progress, I critically evaluated the article, to identify gaps and repositioned our review to clearly differentiate our analytical focus. This experience showcased my ability to manage projects, and work flexibly, capabilities I would bring directly to the Year of Trustworthy Information.