Search results

This paper is concerned with what should happen after design-led events have been held to promote co-decision-making, between professionals and local stakeholders, in collaborative planning of the built environment. Rather than being standalone, such events form one single step in a multi-stage collaborative planning process. What comes before and after them has to be acknowledged as important to their effective contribution to collaborative planning. This paper aims to make a case for giving more attention to the post-event stages of collaborative planning, to ensure that the involvement of the public produces real and tangible benefits.

Content analysis of both academic and grey literatures was undertaken to examine emerging advice on how to conduct decision-making, the implementation of outputs and the delivery of desired outcomes, after design-led events. A critical review of the post-event decision-making and delivery activities is offered, which aims to add to the current academic literature on the deployment of design-led events. An attempt is made to sketch out the characteristics of post-event stages, drawn from the literature and collated specific examples of collaborative planning investigated in Scotland.

Three key factors are identified as affecting the successful implementation of decisions reached at design-led events: (1) a shared follow-on plan, (2) an agreed action programme for delivering this and (3) a properly constituted and resourced delivery vehicle that can monitor and evaluate progress. A research agenda to address questions raised but left unanswered is suggested dealing with how the decision-making and delivery activities following design-led events in collaborative planning might be improved.

A research agenda to address questions raised but left unanswered is suggested dealing with how the decision-making and delivery activities following design-led events in collaborative planning might be improved.

Urban design has historically occupied the gap between architecture and planning. Although there have long been calls for the discipline to bridge this gap, urban design has continued to lean more heavily on design than planning. The efforts to revitalize downtown Toledo, a mid-western U.S. town experiencing steep economic decline, present a classic example of the potentially unfortunate results of this approach. Over the past three decades, there have been many attempts to revitalize the city, especially its downtown, by constructing several large public buildings, all within a few blocks of each other, all designed with little attention to each other or to the surrounding public spaces, and with a remarkable lack of civic engagement.

Responding to calls in the literature for inter-disciplinarity in urban design, and to the city's experience with urban design, the authors created a collaborative studio for architects and planners from two neighboring universities with two purposes: first, to establish a collaborative work environment where any design interventions would be firmly rooted in the planning context (i.e., to erase boundaries between architects and planners); second, to draw lessons from this experience for the practice and teaching of urban design.

Despite the difficulties of collaborating, architects and planners benefited from exposure to each other, learning about each other's work, as well as learning to collaborate. The interdisciplinary teams developed richer proposals than the architect-only teams. Finally, critical engagement with the community is essential to shaping downtown development.

The purpose of this viewpoint paper is to reflect on both the technological and the humanities aspects of working in the digital humanities.

The author completed her academic career as Professor of Digital Humanities (DH) at the University of Brighton, UK. In terms of approach, she looks back over 25 years of working in this domain, which she entered as a scientist in contrast to most of the other academics at that time who came from the humanities. She delineates her academic journey that passed through various disciplines/fields.

The author reflects upon her entire career, starting with decisions made at school, to see how they have affected her contribution to DH. She concludes that a deep understanding of technological issues is fundamental to making sense of such complex fields as Big Data and its effect on humanities research in particular and society in general. She also draws attention to the loss of several highly technical, specialised and practical DH teams, which were replaced with ones whose focus is on DH discourse.

The author is writing as one of the very few scientists who belonged to the new area of history and computing in the mid-1990s.

Islam being a revealed religion for humanity as a whole stands for justice and fairness. This can be achieved by way of establishing an exploitation‐free society. Exploitation is a very complex phenomenon that results from the interaction of multiplicity of forces encompassing economic, social, political and cultural, among others. The mutually interacting forces operate in the presence of dominance‐dependence relationship to perpetuate low productivity and low income, thereby giving rise to exploitation of the underpriviliged by the privileged in the society. The dominance‐dependence relationship works through the interrelated nature of production technology, financial allocation, marketing and distribution networks. Here comes the pivotal role of various institutions involved in dealing with the above mentioned networks. Given the highly centralized nature of administration, the role of head of state in Muslim‐majority countries in promoting appropriate institutions as well as mechanisms for ensuring growth with distributive justice can hardly be over emphasized.

Computer cockups ‐ Last year had my name keyed up on LA'S new membership computer which immediately responded verdantly, ‘This member does not exist’. Incipient paranoia dispelled by silent intoning of ‘I think, therefore I am … I think’. Further consolation in that the silly thing said LA President‐elect didn't exist either.

The quality and market viability of international branch campuses (IBCs) depend upon their integration with university headquarters. Recent trends toward localizing branch-campus hiring have raised questions about the extent to which non-parent-campus lecturers will support global integration pursuits. This paper aims to examine IBC lecturers’ orientations towards global integration, exploring how they identify themselves and their campuses as part of their wider universities.

Employing constructivist grounded theory methodology, 37 lecturers and leaders at four Australian branch campuses in Southeast Asia were interviewed, engaging them in semi-structured discussions of their identities and experiences. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using NVivo in an iterative process of theory development.

Branch-campus lecturers interviewed generally construct their individual and campus identities as separate from their wider universities. Barriers to branch campuses’ global integration include low organizational identification of lecturers, challenges in their relationships with headquarters colleagues and perceptions of cross-campus disparities in resources and students. Branch campuses’ organizationally separate identities are enacted in practice, fueling a self-reinforcing “Othering Loop” that could undermine these campuses’ quality and viability.

This research is the first emic exploration of locally-hired branch-campus lecturers’ views toward global integration. These findings provide an important corrective to the existing literature on this topic, challenging assumptions that localizing branch-campus hiring is the primary risk to integration. Multiple points of potential managerial intervention were identified, highlighting opportunities for university leaders to address contextual barriers and improve international branch campuses’ global integration while continuing current trends toward localized hiring.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Tenn. 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.

VINE is produced at least four times a year with the object of providing up to date news of work being done in the automation of library housekeeping processes, principally in the UK. It is edited and substantially written by The Information Officer for Library Automation based in Southampton University Library and supported by a grant From the British Library Research and Development Department. Copyright for VINE articles rests with the British Library Board, but opinions expressed in VINE do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the British Library. The subscription for 1983 for VINE is £22 for UK subscribers and £25 for overseas subscribers. The first copy will be charged at normal rate, but all others will be supplied for only £12 per year UK and £14 per year overseas. VINE is available in either paper copy or microfiche and all back issues are available on microfiche.