trade origins of the coffee or whether they suppressed this. I was delighted to see that my question was one that Ellis had not thought about, and instead of having an answer he commented that it would be a good area for research. In asking a question that prompted such a response from a professor that I admire, I gained a real confidence boost in my ability to become part of the academic community’. Estelle sums up everyone’s thoughts when she exclaims, a greatly interesting ‘After piece and some thought-provoking questions, nothing could have been more welcome than the vast amounts of coffee that was awaiting us in the refectory’. As coffee breaks provided some of the best opportunities to meet academics, network and discuss the conference so far. Joan focuses on her delight at meeting new people: favourite experience was meeting with a curator from Hampton ‘My Court Palace, currently working on a renovation and total reconstruction of a Georgian chocolate kitchen. Her experiences and views were radically different from those present specialising in critical theory, and her approach focusing on art – history was refreshing and informative. She, like many others, provided multiple – resources, connections, and networking opportunities’. We all stayed together for the first parallel panel of the morning reconsidering the implications of eighteenth-century economic and civilizational theory. Carolyn Dougherty reread Adam Smith’s conception of enlightened self-interest in relation to the by and large pre-industrialized workforce of his eighteenth-century context, stressing the need for the performance of virtuous piety in order to guarantee James Smith presented on the Leavisite journal Scrutiny’s arguing that Leavis represents the century as one in which has ‘something gone wrong’ at the same time as its theories of civilization offered regenerative potential for his modern Waste Land. CJ describes how quickly found myself ‘I fascinated by the Leavises’ work and eager to investigate further over the summer’, although Estelle to feel intimidated by the faultless quality of work, coupled ‘began with a growing anxiety that our panel would be performed to an empty auditorium’. Lizzi, on the other hand, felt that from the really interesting topics presented ‘aside here, this panel was particularly beneficial to us as we could see exactly how our panel would work, and it gave us an opportunity to consider the sorts of questions that were asked by academics’. Dougherty and Smith, or rather Carolyn and James,
trade origins of the coffee or whether they suppressed this. I was delighted to see that my question was one that Ellis had not thought about, and instead of having an answer he commented that it would be a good area for research. In asking a question that prompted such a response from a professor that I admire, I gained a real confidence boost in my ability to become part of the academic community’. Estelle sums up everyone’s thoughts when she exclaims, ‘After a greatly interesting piece and some thought-provoking questions, nothing could have been more welcome than the vast amounts of coffee that was awaiting us in the refectory’. As coffee breaks provided some of the best opportunities to meet academics, network and discuss the conference so far. Joan focuses on her delight at meeting new people: ‘My favourite experience was meeting with a curator from Hampton Court Palace, currently working on a renovation and total reconstruction of a Georgian chocolate kitchen. Her experiences and views were radically different from those present specialising in critical theory, and her approach – focusing on art history – was refreshing and informative. She, like many others, provided multiple resources, connections, and networking opportunities’. We all stayed together for the first parallel panel of the morning reconsidering the implications of eighteenth-century economic and civilizational theory. Carolyn Dougherty reread Adam Smith’s conception of enlightened self-interest in relation to the by and large pre-industrialized workforce of his eighteenth-century context, stressing the need for the performance of virtuous piety in order to guarantee James Smith presented on the Leavisite journal Scrutiny’s arguing that Leavis represents the century as one in which ‘something has gone wrong’ at the same time as its theories of civilization offered regenerative potential for his modern Waste Land. CJ describes how ‘I quickly found myself fascinated by the Leavises’ work and eager to investigate further over the summer’, although Estelle ‘began to feel intimidated by the faultless quality of work, coupled with a growing anxiety that our panel would be performed to an empty auditorium’. Lizzi, on the other hand, felt that ‘aside from the really interesting topics presented here, this panel was particularly beneficial to us as we could see exactly how our panel would work, and it gave us an opportunity to consider the sorts of questions that were asked by academics’. Dougherty and Smith, or rather Carolyn and James,