Search results

This chapter considers the current state of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ+) librarianship in the United Kingdom. It begins with a question: at the time of writing, there seems to be more of a focus on LGBTQ+ issues in museums and archives than there is in libraries. Why is this so? To answer this, the chapter focuses briefly on the wider social setting; looks at current library provision; discusses what “queer librarianship” might involve; considers whether LGBTQ+ library staff’s and LGBTQ+ library users’ voices are heard; and then looks at the question of mainstreaming provision, and considers whether this would be a positive step forward.

This article starts from the assumption that economic sociology, including Karl Polanyi’s work, can contribute fresh perspectives to regulation debates because it opens up new understandings of the nature of economic activity, a key target of legal regulation. In particular this article examines Polanyi’s idea that society drives regulation. For Polanyi the “regulatory counter-movement” is society’s response to the disembedding – in particular through the proliferation of markets – of economic out of social relationships. Section One of the article identifies three key challenges that arise from this Polanyian take on regulation for contemporary regulation researchers. First, Polanyi focuses on social norms restraining business behavior, but neglects social norms embedded in law as also shaping regulation. Second, he seems to imply a clear-cut conceptual distinction between “economy” and “society.” Third, his analysis sidelines the role of interest politics in the development of regulation.

Addressing the first of these three key challenges, Section Two of this article therefore argues that a Polanyian vision of “socialized” legal regulation should build on contemporary accounts of responsive law and regulation, which focus attention on social norms informing legal regulation. Section Three of this article tackles the second key challenge raised by Polanyi’s work for contemporary regulation researchers, that is, how to transcend a modernist perspective of “economy” and “society” as clearly demarcated, distinct fields of social action. It argues that discourse theory is an important alternative theoretical resource. Drawing on Laclau and Mouffe, the article suggests that understanding “economy” and “society” as performed by open and relationally constructed discourses helps to capture interconnections between “economy” and “society” that become particularly visible when we analyze how specific regulatory regimes work at a medium- and small-scale level. These points are further brought to life in Section Four through a discussion of the European Union (EU) regulatory regime for trade in risky, transgenic agricultural products, and in particular the current reform debates about the consideration of the “socioeconomic impacts” of such products.

In this paper, readers are introduced to the stories of Sarah, Ashley, and Chanelle, who represent different racial categorizations, class backgrounds, entryways into sex work, and histories of sexual victimization. These three women were each convicted as sex offenders because of their involvement in the prostitution of women or girls. This paper demonstrates that these women did not view their actions as sex offenses because their perceptions of themselves, men, women, sexuality, and prostitution were profoundly influenced by interconnecting experiences in their life histories. Child sexual abuse, economic needs, and abusive interpersonal relationships all impacted how these women viewed themselves and their actions. This paper briefly reviews the historically divisive and ultimately detrimental debate between feminists who frame all prostitution as sexual violence and feminists who advocate for full legalization of sex work. Sarah, Ashley, and Chanelle’s stories illustrate the complexities that exist within the lives of women who become involved in prostitution due to a variety of circumstances and social inequalities. Sarah, Ashley, and Chanelle were not completely hapless victims disenfranchised by their pimps, nor were they fully agentive sexual entrepreneurs unfairly targeted by the state. These women made a series of decisions based on their needs for survival, their personal economic desires, and their beliefs about men, women, and sexuality. This paper provides ample room for the women’s voices, and documents their explanations for why and how they became involved in prostitution, as well as the prostitution of other women and girls.

This chapter explores the theorising practices of successful researchers in higher education. The biographical case studies use teaching and learning as their focus to provide four succinct accounts of how the researcher’s thinking around their signature concepts evolved over time. They analyse the narrative that surrounds these signature concepts to understand what successful researchers do with their ideas to maximise their symbolic capital in the higher education research field. The researcher’s experiences of theorising highlight the contextual factors that have influenced them as they tried to explain how they achieved the outcomes of their research. The chapter concludes with an overview of the beneficial strategies used in these four cases, so potential researchers can appreciate the approaches to theorising that are compatible with higher education research traditions.

This study aimed to document the life experiences of child miners (CMs) engaged in small-scale gold mining system (SSGMS) in Paracale using qualitative and ethnographic approaches. Findings revealed that the SSGMS started even before the Spaniards came in 1572. Pagbibitâ (underground mining), and pagkocompressor (underwater mining) were identified as types of SSGMS (pagkakabod) with common organizational structure and CMs. Their differences were in the nature of work, roles, costs, income, equipment, and processes. Majority of the CMs are males, out-of-school youth, eldest children, and have worked from two months to nine years. Altruistic factors, a source of inspiración, motivated them to engage on mining. They view their families as poor, and mining as their primary means of livelihood and family tradición. Their life threatening or work-related risks and impoverished living conditions unquestionably infringe their children’s rights. Their aspiración include having permanent employment, better family life and community, finishing their studies, and sending their siblings to school. Perseverance and hard work are their means to realize them.

Their experiences of labour explotación and destitution are indeed social issues. Espousing social development and community organizing frameworks, good governance, holistic alternative livelihood and learning system may minimize their plight as child miners.

Political dissent threads through the history of the Olympic Games. Although the International Olympic Committee (IOC) openly prohibits athletes from injecting politics into the Games, Olympians have nevertheless staged protests, using the Olympics to challenge the predominant power structures and institutions. This chapter analyzes outbursts of athlete activism in the context of wider social movements that make these political paroxysms more viable. Social movements scythe political space for athletes, spark athletes' political imaginary, and provide support and cover. From the early days of the Games, Olympic athletes have expressed dissent, as when Irish track-and-field athlete Peter O'Connor rebelled against British colonialism at the 1906 Olympics in Athens. At the Mexico City 1968 Games, Czech gymnast Vera Čáslavská carried out a politically symbolic acts as did US sprinters John Carlos, Tommie Smith, and Wyomia Tyus. At the 1972 Munich Games, US track medalists Vincent Matthews and Wayne Collett protested in nonchalant fashion on the medal stand. At the 1980 Olympics, Polish Olympian Władysław Kozakiewicz issued politically provocative symbology on the pole vault mat that challenged Soviet hegemony. In the twenty-first century, numerous Olympians have made political statements, despite a rule in the Olympic Charter that forbids such activity. In each case, athlete activists were bolstered by vibrant political movements in their home country. In this chapter, I trace the relationship between political Olympians and social movements as well as the wider dialectic of resistance and restriction that encompasses the interplay between dissident Olympians and the IOC.