Search results

Modernising a sheltered workshop into a new, vocational service providing individual placement support was a painful but ultimately rewarding and worthwhile experience for Hilary Hawkes and the service users with whom she works.

Australia appears to be encountering a crisis in the protection of certain heritage places, despite its strong reputation in heritage conservation built up since the 1970s. Consequently, this paper examines changes to national cultural heritage management policy over the last few decades to understand more about this crisis.

Indigenous (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage) was selected as the key focus. This paper applies a cultural heritage management framework tested first in Hong Kong to measure Australian paradigm change over 45 years.

It found the 1990s shift away from the provision of independent technical advice on national heritage policy has had a major impact. This shift is based on a change in ethos away from the earlier Whitlam/National Estate broader vision of heritage responsibilities towards a narrower more conservative one at the national level. Also, it found that studies and policymaking should allow for Indigenous voices. More Indigenous input in heritage policy formulation at all levels of government would further decolonise Indigenous heritage governance to deal justly with Indigenous Australians and their heritage.

Resources did not allow for comparative studies of the non-Indigenous (historic) and natural heritage as part of the current study.

The study also included a consultation paper and an online conference presentation that have raised questions about the efficacy of current national policy on Indigenous places, on which a national conversation is urgently needed. The recent review of the National Heritage Strategy by the Australian Commonwealth Government based some of its proposed options on those listed in the consultation paper to initiate this conversation in a limited way.

One finding is that attention to heritage policy and protection must be ongoing at all levels of government and inclusive of First People's human rights, particularly those concerning their heritage. In regard to Australia, most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander respondents in this study would like to see targeted funding return for more than just iconic Indigenous places and for the creation of a more independent heritage body that allows them more self-determination in the care of their heritage.

The paper's value is that it investigates the Australian Heritage Commission's impact in the development of Australian cultural heritage management and associated national policy. Also, it provides insights for other postcolonial or New World settler societies dealing with the same issues or any decision-makers considering establishing a national independent body to oversee heritage protection and policymaking.

THE topics of the Library Association Conference and the election of the Council of the Association naturally absorb a great deal of attention this month. To deal with the second first: there were few novelties in the nominations, and most of the suggested new Councillors are good people; so that a fairly good Council should result. The unique thing, as we imagine, about the Library Association is the number of vice‐presidents, all of whom have Council privileges. These are not elected by the members but by the Council, and by the retiring Council; they occupy a position analagous to aldermen in town councils, and are not amenable to the choice or desires of the members at large. There are enough of them, too, if they care to be active, to dominate the Council. Fortunately, good men are usually elected, but recently there has been a tendency to elect comparatively young men to what are virtually perpetual seats on the Council, simply, if one may judge from the names, because these men occupy certain library positions. It, therefore; is all the more necessary that the electors see that men who really represent the profession get the seats that remain.

Our article on the recently‐issued Post‐war Proposals of the Library Association is, like the accounts that have appeared elsewhere, merely preliminary. It must be productive of much suggestion and comment, including we have no doubt much criticism from librarians. It has been given, we understand, a most extensive circulation, to Members of Parliament, local authorities, all Town Clerks and Clerks to Councils, all societies which have social and cultural objects, selected private persons, all members of the L.A. and, of course, the press in London and the Provinces. Some measures of the interest in libraries may be gained from the amount of discussion that will ensue. We hope that our readers will at least keep us in touch with their opinions and suggestions and will make every effort to prevent their submergence in the welter of schemes and reports now surrounding us.

The purpose of this paper is to create comparable time series data on university income in Australia and the UK that might be used as a resource for those seeking to understand the changing funding profile of universities in the two countries and for those seeking to investigate how such data were produced and utilised.

A statistical analysis of university income from all sources in the UK and Australia.

The article produces a new time series for Australia and a comparable time series for the UK. It suggests some of the ways these data related to broader patterns of economic change, sketches the possibility of strategic influence, and outlines some of their limitations.

This is the first study to systematically create a time series on Australian university income across the twentieth century and present it alongside a comparable dataset for the UK.

This paper aims to assess the empirical utility and conceptual significance of distributed leadership.

Three main sources of evidence are drawn on. The paper reviews some neglected commentary of an early generation of distributed leadership theorists. It also discusses a strand of social science writings on emergent small number management formations. An alternative interpretation of the findings of three recent empirical studies of distributed leadership is provided. Some unresolved issues are considered.

Distributed leadership arose in reaction to understandings of leadership that emphasised heroic‐like individual behaviour. It has achieved a high level of theoretical and practical uptake. This paper, however, argues for reconsideration. Distributed leadership is shown to be largely unremarkable, especially in light of the continuity between current writings and those of early generation scholars. This claim is also reinforced by the inability of most current scholars to develop the emergent potential of a tradition of writings on the division of labour in small groups (emanating mainly from the work of Georg Simmel). Finally, the paper argues that a more appropriate descriptor for recent leadership analyses may be “hybrid”, rather than “distributed”.

Conceptually and empirically, there is still work to do. First, leadership's distributed status now aligns it with power and influence, each for some time recognised as distributed, although the preference for leadership as a vehicle of analysis ahead of power and influence still lacks sufficient justification. Second, while distributed leadership is sometimes thought of as synonymous with democratic organisational leadership, the latter is shown to be conceptually distinct.

WHILE there is no doubt that the system of issuing books at “net” prices is of great benefit to booksellers, there is also no doubt that, unless care is taken, it is a serious drain upon a limited book‐purchasing income. A few years ago the position had become so serious that conferences were held with a view to securing the exemption of Public Libraries from the “net” price. The attempt, as was perhaps to be expected, failed. Since that time, the system has been growing until, at the present time, practically every non‐fictional book worth buying is issued at a “net price.”