Search results

Asheim concluded by noting that the need for change was the thread that connected almost all discussions of library education during the decade; change was not just accepted but anticipated, encouraged, and even instigated at an increasing pace. The accompanying effect on professional education was that “… the stress in education … fell upon education-for-change rather than upon the history, the heritage, the tradition.”(1975, p. 178) Wisely, perhaps, Asheim declined to predict whether or not this particular stress on change would continue, but he did raise the possibility of a respite, a period when change would be placed to the side in favor of reaction and retrenchment. Thirty years later his words sound almost wistful:The next few years may be a period of synthesis following the antithesis of the past decade—not a complete return to an earlier and more leisurely past, but not so violent a wrench as was feared by some, and sought by others (1975, p. 178).

The honor of editing the 30th volume of Advances in Librarianship posed a challenge of how to acknowledge changes in the profession over three and a half decades, while continuing a tradition of identifying new trends and innovations. The series aims to present a variety of aspects of the field of librarianship through the publication of critical articles and surveys, based on the published literature, research in progress, and current developments, relating to all segments of the profession and related topics. Contributing authors are encouraged to address provocative and stimulating topics that will ensure that trends are identified and research results of interest are made available quickly in a rapidly changing profession. Though authors in the past have been encouraged to add an historical perspective, those contributing to this volume were invited especially to celebrate the history of the past 36 years by reflecting, as appropriate, on advances made in their topic since the first volume of the series was published in 1970.

In the literature of librarianship, the education of a reference librarian has, on the whole, meant two things. First, it has referred to the theoretical and/or practical training in reference services that a student receives in library school. Second, it has meant the training, or lack of it, the new librarian receives in making the transition from library school to the reference desk. What reference education has not meant, to judge by the literature, is the ongoing training or professional development a working reference librarian might receive on the job.

The following is an annotated list of materials dealing with orientation to library facilities and services, instruction in the use of information resources, and computer skills related to information gathering. This is RSR's twelfth annual review of this literature and lists items published in 1985. A few references are not annotated because the compiler could not obtain copies of them for the review.

This chapter updates earlier research that analyzed mergers, collaborations, and similar trends in LIS education, and provides a more comprehensive current summary of those trends. Three distinct patterns are beginning to emerge in both organizational structure and collaboration: changes in the nature of LIS program partnerships within parent educational institutions; the impact on LIS education by prominent academic associations that are not reliant on ALA accreditation recognition; and the growth in the number and type of academic offerings in LIS schools themselves. Among some notable changes are the establishment of the Consortium of iSchools Asia Pacific (CiSAP), continued growth in the iSchool caucus and its increasing international membership. Additionally the number of dual degree master’s programs in which LIS departments partner is on the rise, as is the number of degrees now being offered at LIS schools (both at the undergraduate and graduate levels) that are not “traditional” MLS degrees. Inter-institutional collaborative MLIS programs are also emergent, evident in such programs as the Web-based Information Science Education (WISE) consortium. The data presented here seem to suggest that the face of LIS education continues to change as the 21st century gets underway.

Selective laser melting (SLM) is increasingly used to manufacture bone implants from titanium alloys with particular interest in porous lattice structures. These complex constructs have been shown to be capable of matching native bone mechanical behaviour leading to improved osseointegration while providing numerous clinical advantages, encouraging their broad use in medical devices. However, producing lattices with a strut diameter similar in scale to a typical SLM melt pool or using the same process parameters and scan strategies intended for bulk solid components may lead to geometric inaccuracies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and optimise the single contour strategy for the production of Ti-6Al-4V lattices.

Herein, the potential of an unfilled single contour (SC) scanning strategy to improve the reproducibility of porous lattices when compared with a single contour and fill approach (SC + F) is explored. For this purpose, two parametric analysis were carried out on Ti-6Al-4V diamond unit cell lattices with different strut sizes and scan strategies. Porosity and accuracy measurements were correlated with processing parameters and printing strategy to provide the optimal processing window for lattice manufacturing.

SC is shown to be a viable strategy for production of Ti-6Al-4V lattices with a strut diameter below 350 µm. Parametric analysis highlights the limits of this method in producing fully dense struts with energy density presented as a useful practical tool to guide some aspects of parameter selection (design strut diameter achieved at approximately 0.1 J/mm in this study). Finally, a process map combining data from both parametric studies is provided to guide, predict and control lattice strut geometry and porosity obtained using the SC strategy.

These results explore the use of non-standard SC scanning strategy as a viable method for producing strut-based lattice structures and compare against the traditional contour and fill approach (SC + F).

The boundaries of Little Italy are not precise, and have shifted over time. In the 19th century, the district extended south of Canal Street into the area identified by Jacob Riis as the “Mulberry Bend,” and described as “the foul core of New York’s slums.”³ By the 1960s, Little Italy had retreated across Canal Street, as the Italian population began to leave the neighborhood for other areas in the city. For the purposes of this paper, Little Italy shall be understood as comprising three census tracts in New York City’s Manhattan county, numbers 41, 43, and 45. This area, lying within a short walking distance of City Hall, is roughly bounded by Canal Street on the south, Bowery on the East, Broadway on the west, and East Houston street to the north. Nicknamed the Mulberry District, it became the first and largest Italian enclave in the United States between 1870s and 1924. While there had been an Italian community in New York for generations, historian George Pozetta has argued that the winter of 1872–1873 was pivotal in the development of this community, when more than 2000 poor Italian immigrants, arrived at Castle Garden, the immigrant reception center, unable to care for themselves.⁴ These immigrants were quickly fitted in to the preexisting Italian community, taking advantage of the contacts provided by the bossi, typically northern Italian men who had arrived earlier, to find jobs in such local enterprises as groceries and saloons, and with American employers. Once the new comers settled, a process of chain-migration began. By the later 1870s, the bossi were acting as agents for gangs of labor sent out from New York to work in other areas across North American. As a result, the Mulberry district became a sort of transshipment point for Italian labor.