Search results

WE have to announce with deep regret the death of Mr. I. Chalkley Gould, founder and director of the Library World since its establishment in 1898. Mr. Gould was a member of an old Essex family associated with Loughton and its neighbourhood, and was born in 1844, his father being the late George Gould, of Traps Hill House, Loughton. His connection with the firm of Marlborough, Gould & Co. and other stationery and printing concerns led him many years ago to give some attention to library and museum work, towards which he had always been attracted because of his personal interest in archaeology and literature. In this way he became associated with many museums, libraries and antiquarian societies, and identified himself more particularly with the movement for the preservation of ancient British earthworks. He was a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, vice‐president of the Essex Archaeological Society, the Essex Field Club, and the British Archaeological Association. Within recent years he acted as hon. secretary of the Committee for Recording Ancient Earthworks and Fortified Enclosures—a committee for the formation of which he was largely responsible and in the work of which he took a very deep interest. He was chairman of the Committee for the Exploration of the Red Hills of Essex—an important undertaking which is not yet completed. He also contributed several valuable papers to the Victoria History of Essex, and assisted the editor of that publication in revising the earthworks sections of other counties.

MUCH has already been said and written upon the subject of the indicator: but in view of the general trend of advanced Public Library administration a little space may with advantage be devoted again to the consideration of its value as a modern library appliance. Passing over (a) the decision of that curiously constituted committee formed in 1879 to consider and report on indicators, and (b) the support which it received in 1880 from the Library Association, it may be said that for the next fourteen or fifteen years the indicator system was the popular, almost the universal, system in vogue throughout the country. Of late years professional opinion as to its value has undergone a remarkable change. The reaction which has set in was brought about chiefly by the introduction of Open Access in 1894, with the many reforms that accompanied it, though much, doubtless, was due to the prevalence of a more exact and systematic knowledge of librarianship, and to the natural evolution of ideas. It is not, however, intended in this paper to compare the indicator with the open access system, but with others suitable to the requirements of a closed library.

A year or two ago the Library Association established what was called, a Press Committee, having as its objects the correcting of misstatements and the replying to attacks on public libraries in the newspapers. Our press‐cuttings have not given us many examples of the Committee's activity, and we fear it never did much if any work. This has no doubt been because the library profession is so small that the number of men able and willing to further its purposes is necessarily too limited to carry through a vigorous policy. The article in The Daily Mail to which Eratosthenes refers in characteristic fashion this month is an example of the sort of thing which ought to have been met immediately by the Press Committee. We need a few men with level heads and facile pens promptly to challenge any plea for such misapplied public economy. Plausible suggestions that public libraries are of secondary importance are made every day, and so deeply is this opinion rooted in the minds of some of our public leaders that any opposition to it needs to be both practical and wise. To all who have considered social and economic questions at all the strength of the case for the public library has never been more strong than it is at present. But men who believe that economy will be served by stopping the medical inspection of school children and by the abolition of technical education—and such suggestions were actually made in the article we have mentioned—would certainly not spare the university of the people. Indeed, the author bluntly suggested that the libraries should be closed and the officials dismissed! A writer in the Sunday Chronicle sanely declares the closing suggested to be “not only not economy; it is anti‐patriotic.” Under these circumstances a vigorous publicity committee of librarians and library experts like Aldermen Abbott, Brittain, Leslie and Plummer, might do invaluable service.

During the four years of preliminary meetings that led to the 1977 Protocols Additional I and II governing internal armed conflict, the prohibitions against superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering – two concepts that gird the regulation and moderation of war and limit the use of certain means and methods of warfare – were invoked as a means of calling into account the actions of imperial states. These meetings took place in the context of the conflicts in Southeast Asia, following the wars of decolonization and national liberation in the 1950s and 1960s. The participants in these meetings were freedom fighters and liberation movements who used this forum, which was open to them for the first time, to push for a wider understanding of the concepts of superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering. Their intention was to hold imperialism and imperial states accountable for suffering and injury beyond that of physical death or wounding and to recognize the violence of colonization and the social and cultural devastation it brought. These interventions were a critical attempt to broaden and deepen the meaning of the laws of war, to make them responsive to more than established sovereign state violence, and to ensure that they reflected the experience of colonization/decolonization. This episode matters because the prohibitions against unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury are two elements that detail the general prohibition first codified in 1907 Hague Convention IV, Article 22, namely that the “the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.” However, the history and formulation of these two concepts has yet to be fully explored, the meaning of each is debated, and taken together the two are among “the most unclear and controversial rules of warfare.”

Digital transformation in nursing education is crucial for enhancing pedagogical practices and preparing future healthcare professionals for the rapidly evolving healthcare landscape. This chapter explores how the integration of digital technologies in higher education has revolutionising teaching methodologies and offered new opportunities to enhance learning experiences. It identifies gaps in digital learning modalities for undergraduate and postgraduate nursing students and discusses strategies to strengthen online literacy preparation and transition into the healthcare sector's digital transformation landscape and the 4th industrial era economy. The chapter examines best practices and challenges in digital transformation in nursing education such as blended learning environments, simulation and virtual reality, mobile learning applications and gamification strategies. Additionally, it addresses challenges in curriculum development including insufficient technological infrastructure, faculty training and development, assessment strategies and resistance to change among faculty and students. This chapter aims to provide insights and recommendations for educators, curriculum developers and policymakers in implementing successful digital transformation in nursing education.

A great deal of contemporary research in education, and in the social sciences more generally, is conducted through interviews. Interview-derived accounts and narratives have been used as data for many decades. We argue that, despite their popularity and their long history, such data are not always subjected to rigorous analysis. Researchers too often treat interviews as sources of insight about informants’ experiences and feelings, but pay insufficient attention to the forms and functions of such accounts. We argue that they need to be approached through the analytic lens of accounting devices and narrative structures. We exemplify this approach through ‘academic’ narratives: scientists’ discovery accounts and accounts of doctoral supervision. We emphasise how such accounts need to be examined in terms of the discursive construction of reality. Such an approach is an important corrective to the selective reporting of ‘atrocity stories’ about postgraduate education.

This paper seeks to explore the attitudes of lesbian mothers towards same‐sex marriage, focusing in particular on how they perceive the relationship between marriage and children's best interests.

The paper draws on 36 semi‐structured interviews with lesbian mothers living in British Columbia and Alberta, comparing their views on marriage and children's best interests with those articulated by lesbian and gay litigants during the Canadian same‐sex marriage campaign.

It was found that few of the mothers made any positive link between having married parents and children's best interests. Only a quarter of the couples had married or intended to marry.

Whether the views expressed in this research will be embraced by the next generation of lesbian mothers is difficult to predict. Prospective lesbian mothers will be able to marry before having children, will likely experience greater societal pressure to marry, and may have weaker ties to feminist politics. The issue should be revisited to see whether the views expressed in the research resonate with the next generation of mothers.

Law reform directed at same‐sex families should not presume that lesbians perceive there to be any positive relationship between marriage and children's best interests.

The paper provides empirical data on how lesbian mothers understand the relationship, if any, between having married parents and children's best interests. It challenges the universality of the very traditional views expressed in the same‐sex marriage litigation, and argues that amongst the wider lesbian mothering community attitudes towards the relationship between marriage and parenting are considerably more diverse.