Search results

While information and communications technology provides new opportunities for supporting mentoring, there is a need to explore how effectively these potential benefits are being realised. This paper seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of a program in the small business context as a basis for proposing determinants of e‐mentoring effectiveness.

Using qualitative inquiry, this study aims to establish patterns in the characteristics of effective and ineffective e‐mentoring partnerships using a model derived from information systems success field.

The study establishes a basis for understanding how the potential benefits of structured e‐mentoring are being realised in the small business context.

The study empirically establishes a range of determinants of effective e‐mentoring in the small business context.

The study provides a set of critical success factors and evaluation criteria for use by practitioners who are developing and evaluating the effectiveness of e‐mentoring programs.

In recent decades, significant advances have been made at both the grassroots and professional levels of women's ice hockey in North America. Yet, despite recent achievements, such as the establishment of ‘professional’ leagues, and compelling narratives of progress, athletes and league organisers still face significant challenges. The barriers women face, such as reduced access to resources and opportunity, lack of legitimacy, and league instability, and a continued reliance on relationships with men's sporting leagues, such as the National Hockey League, suggest that women's ice hockey is accommodated into the game in ways that reinforce and perpetuate systems of gender, reproducing a neoliberal notion of failure. Using Halberstam's (2011) notion of failure as the place from which reform and transformation can take place, we offer a critical reading of the (re)formation of the National Women's Hockey League and the developments in women's (semi)professional ice hockey in North America.

Sir Raymond Streat, C.B.E., Director of The Cotton Board, Manchester, accompanied by Lady Streat. A Vice‐President: F. C. Francis, M.A., F.S.A., Keeper of the Department of Printed Books, British Museum. Honorary Treasurer: J.E.Wright. Honorary Secretary: Mrs. J. Lancaster‐Jones, B.Sc., Science Librarian, British Council. Chairman of Council: Miss Barbara Kyle, Research Worker, Social Sciences Documentation. Director: Leslie Wilson, M.A.

THE scientist and philosopher will tell us that the mind of man cannot in a lifetime fully grasp and understand any one subject. Consequently it is unreasonable to expect that the librarian—who, in spite of popular belief, is but man—can have a complete understanding of every department of knowledge relative to his work. He must, in common with his fellows in other callings, content himself with a more or less general professional knowledge, and may specialize, if he be so disposed, in certain branches of that knowledge. The more restricted this particular knowledge is, the greater will be its value from a specialistic point of view.

The necessary disadvantages contingent upon a time of war grow in emphasis, and one of these is undoubtedly the infrequency of the gatherings of the Library Association. As a result there has been so far no means of ventilating the question of a Library Association Conference for 1918. We have turned in vain to the pages of the official journal for any record of the intentions of the Council in this direction; and the complaints which were justly made last year as to the delay in making arrangements or at least preliminary announcements seem to have been without effect. This is a state of affairs which the profession should not endure calmly. No conference held in September or thereabouts can be expected to succeed unless it is announced before June. It may be that the Council works in spasmodic fashion, and is under the comfortable delusion that everybody else does. It should be disabused of this notion speedily. Many librarians have already made their arrangements for the summer, and will not be turned from them by the tardy decisions of Caxton Hall. As for the general question of whether a conference should be held or not, it must be clear to most of us that all the arguments that weighed for a conference in 1917 are equally weighty in 1918.