Search results

Much of the contemporary literature surrounding the barriers to community self‐help in the advanced economies has placed great emphasis on capital‐orientated barriers, such as a household's access to financial capital, time capital, human capital and social capital. Focusing explicitly on one‐to‐one mutual aid, and drawing on rich qualitative data from two urban communities in the UK, this paper aims to re‐visit the barriers to participation that prevent households from doing more for others in their community. In particular, the paper explores a range of entrenched social taboos that underpin the contested spaces of mutual aid. These include: “being aburden to others”, “false expectations/ inappropriate gestures”, “being taken advantage of” and “being unable to say no”. Furthermore, the paper also addresses the potentially problematic implications that the nature of work undertaken through mutual aid has for the social relationships that are involved. Despite finding previous UK‐based research findings focused on capital barriers to be highly appropriate when considering mutual aid, the paper argues that the current emphasis placed on these barriers in policy and practice is disproportionate. To address this imbalance, the paper concludes that a greater awareness of socially‐orientated barriers must be forthcoming if a more nuanced and accurate reading of mutual aid is to be achieved.

The research that is used to inform the findings of the paper is drawn from 100 in‐depth semi‐structured questionnaires conducted within households in the urban wards of West Knighton and Saffron in the city of Leicester, UK. The methods are designed to generate both quantitative and qualitative findings that engage explicitly with the informal work practices of households.

The paper explores a range of entrenched social taboos that underpin the contested spaces of mutual. These include: “being a burden to others”, “false expectations/inappropriate gestures”, “being taken advantage of” and “being unable to say no”. The main conclusions argue that both social barriers and capital‐based barriers to participation in mutual aid must be given more equal consideration in future academic and policy‐making discourse.

The qualitative nature of the research makes it difficult to meaningfully extrapolate the findings beyond the case studies used.

The research focused on the informal coping strategy of mutual aid offers a deeper insight into this coping strategy. In exploring the various capital and social barriers to participation, the findings offer ways for popular, academic and political communities to reflect on their own approaches to informal volunteerism, and if appropriate these can inform future approaches tasked with tackling these barriers and harnessing mutual aid in society.

In discussing the barriers to participation, the paper gives new insight into the contested geographies of mutual aid at the household and community level. To successfully overcome these barriers and further promote mutualism and community self‐help is seen to be both desirable and necessary particularly following the formal economic crisis that has raised serious questions for the economy and society in recent years.

The research not only adds robustness to previous emerging findings related to the resource‐based barriers to participation in mutual aid, but it also constructively asserts the relevance and centrality of social taboos. The paper argues that these social taboos must form a core point of analyses whenever barriers to greater levels of participation in mutual aid are discussed.

Using new empirical data from the UK focused on mutual aid and reciprocity, the purpose of this paper is to offer robust challenges to the logic and dominance of the commodification thesis. In finding mutual aid to be a significant coping strategy to get household tasks completed, in both affluent and deprived communities, the paper addresses the important question as to “why” mutual aid is so pervasive. Using qualitative insights as to “why” respondents engaged in mutual aid and reciprocity a considered response to this question, revolving around the instinctive and social nature of reciprocity, is made.

The research draws on previous Household Work Practice Studies, which have been influential in exploring the geographies of community self‐help. An in‐depth semi‐structured questionnaire, which adapts and develops previous successful approaches focused on mutual aid and volunteering, was employed across 100 households in two neighbouring wards in Leicester, UK.

The research found that the non‐commodified sphere of mutual aid was employed as a central coping strategy within the two communities investigated. The suggestion is that the extent of mutual aid in both deprived neighbourhoods and affluent neighbourhoods has been underestimated in previous research. However, the strength of the methodology resides with its understanding of the rationales being participation in mutual aid. This suggests that the natural and instinctive nature of reciprocity, and the social role that mutual aid plays within kin and non‐kin relations, helps explain its pervasiveness in the advanced economies.

The methodology and methods were designed to explicitly harness a deep qualitative understanding of the relationship and attitudes that households adopt toward their informal coping strategies, and mutual aid in particular. Thus though this approach has uncovered rich qualitative data to inform the key arguments, the quantitative findings must be treated as speculative rather than conclusive.

In undermining the commodification thesis, the paper concludes that alternate and better approaches toward harnessing “the economic” in society must be pursued by policy makers. Crucially economic policy which promotes co‐operation over competition within society should be seen as earning the qualification of “advanced” economic practice.

This is the first paper which explicitly looks at the pervasive nature of mutual aid within the advanced economies, using primary data from Leicester. The value is seen on three levels: first, the original arguments made which highlight the pervasiveness of this informal coping strategy; second, the manner with which these contemporary insights are then contextualised with reference to the wider literature; third, the way in which this research adds to the calls to fundamentally re‐think our dominant attitudes (and policies) toward the commodified and non‐commodified spheres of work in the advanced economies.

President Bill Clinton has had many opponents and enemies, most of whom come from the political right wing. Clinton supporters contend that these opponents, throughout the Clinton presidency, systematically have sought to undermine this president with the goal of bringing down his presidency and running him out of office; and that they have sought non‐electoral means to remove him from office, including Travelgate, the death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster, the Filegate controversy, and the Monica Lewinsky matter. This bibliography identifies these and other means by presenting citations about these individuals and organizations that have opposed Clinton. The bibliography is divided into five sections: General; “The conspiracy stream of conspiracy commerce”, a White House‐produced “report” presenting its view of a right‐wing conspiracy against the Clinton presidency; Funding; Conservative organizations; and Publishing/media. Many of the annotations note the links among these key players.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Term. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

The following classified, annotated list of titles is intended to provide reference librarians with a current checklist of new reference books, and is designed to supplement the RSR review column, “Recent Reference Books,” by Frances Neel Cheney. “Reference Books in Print” includes all additional books received prior to the inclusion deadline established for this issue. Appearance in this column does not preclude a later review in RSR. Publishers are urged to send a copy of all new reference books directly to RSR as soon as published, for immediate listing in “Reference Books in Print.” Reference books with imprints older than two years will not be included (with the exception of current reprints or older books newly acquired for distribution by another publisher). The column shall also occasionally include library science or other library related publications of other than a reference character.

It is now forty years since there appeared H. R. Plomer's first volume Dictionary of the booksellers and printers who were at work in England, Scotland and Ireland from 1641 to 1667. This has been followed by additional Bibliographical Society publications covering similarly the years up to 1775. From the short sketches given in this series, indicating changes of imprint and type of work undertaken, scholars working with English books issued before the closing years of the eighteenth century have had great assistance in dating the undated and in determining the colour and calibre of any work before it is consulted.

In 2015, Idris Elba declared ‘I’m probably the most famous Bond actor in the world … and I’ve not even played the role’. Speculation about Elba taking on the role of the world’s most famous spy has circulated for over a decade, fuelled by current Bond Daniel Craig’s assertion that the role has ruined his life. This chapter will examine the role of fans in driving hype about the future of Bond, focusing on the case study of alt-right outrage at the potential casting of Elba. The anti-Elba camp have framed their outrage as informed by authorial intent, and the desire to maintain canon, with claims that Ian Fleming’s Bond was, and should always be white and Scottish. Bond’s expansive narrative universe has remained constant since its inception, enabling fans of the series to form an emotional connection and sense of ownership over the text as a cohesive brand, a form of ‘affective economics’ (Hills, 2015; Jenkins, 2006a). By situating the debate over Elba’s suitability within the timeline of the Bond franchise, the author will posit that the rigid casting and structure of the film series to date enables feelings of fan ownership to flourish. Whilst the influence of vocal fan groups has altered the future direction of numerous popular texts, this chapter will suggest that the sameness of Bond-as-brand provides the justification for fan backlash towards potential change. In sum, this chapter will highlight the Elba-as-Bond rumours as a reflection of the contemporary political moment which seeks to flatten out difference under the auspice of protecting the canon and tradition of ‘brand Bond’.

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

The following classified, annotated list of titles is intended to provide reference librarians with a current checklist of new reference books, and is designed to supplement the RSR review column, “Recent Reference Books,” by Frances Neel Cheney. “Reference Books in Print” includes all additional books received prior to the inclusion deadline established for this issue. Appearance in this column does not preclude a later review in RSR. Publishers are urged to send a copy of all new reference books directly to RSR as soon as published, for immediate listing in “Reference Books in Print.” Reference books with imprints older than two years will not be included (with the exception of current reprints or older books newly acquired for distribution by another publisher). The column shall also occasionally include library science or other library related publications of other than a reference character.