Search results

As non‐traditiona! entry to higher education increases, combined with high quality distance education and parttime learning opportunities which create an emphasis on the concept of “lifelong learning”, the demand for learning resources and library services in all communities will increase. Provided that public libraries can rise to the inherent challenges in meeting the needs of lifelong learners, they will become the institution of choice for the general public for support of learning and education, offering prospective learners potential access to a wide range of high quality learning resources, no matter where they, or the resources, may be geographically situated. In this, by taking advantage of the advances of technology, the mobile library may expand its traditional role and be a major player in repositioning the library as an information broker in support of lifelong learning in remote or marginalised communities.

In our June issue last year we spoke to five librarians from around the world about the library automation systems in place in their libraries, and their thoughts and plans for the future. This year we asked them to take a look back and see what has changed, how much has come true and, again, to give their thoughts on what the future might hold. Min‐Min Chang is Director of the Library at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Library (http://library.ust.hk). Alejandro Leal‐Cueva is in charge of the Library Automation Programme at the University of Nuevo Leon in Mexico (http://ulibarri.bcms.uanl.mx). Lyndall Osborne is Circulation Services Librarian at Maroochy Shire Library Service, Queensland, Australia (http://peg.apc.org/‐maroochy/). Cinda Romuldietz is Automation Supervisor at Saskatoon Public Library, Canada (http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/education/spl). Sue Sutherland is Libraries Manager at Canterbury Public Library, Christchurch, New Zealand (http://www.ccc.govt.nz/Library/).

For this month's Focus interview we spoke to five librarians around the world about the automation system used in their library, their opinion of it, and their thoughts for the future of library automation. Lyndall Osborne is Circulation Services Librarian at Maroochy Shire Library Service, Queensland, Australia (http://peg.apc.org/∼maroochy/). Sue Sutherland is Libraries Manager of Canterbury Public Library, Christchurch, New Zealand (http://www.ccc.govt.nz/Library/). Min‐Min Chang is Director of the Library at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Library (http://library.ust.hk/). Cinda Romuldietz is Automation Supervisor at Saskatoon Public Library, Canada (http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/education/spl/). Alejandro Leal‐Cueva is in charge of the Library Automation Programme at the University of Nuevo Leon in Mexico (http://ulibarri.bcms.uanl.mx/).

WHATEVER individuals may think of the miners' strike and Mr. Seargill's attitude in it, the fact remains that they reflect a momentous change in the direction of collective bargaining: the initiative has moved from workers to management.

Cameralism, as a set if ideas, refers to a system of “sciences” whose professors, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, recorded and attempted to extend and improve administrative practices to serve the absolutist monarchs of Germany and Austria. This article examines some of the major themes of cameralist political and social thought. Particular attention is paid here to cameralist writings about the nature of the state, the value of science, and the power of the executive. It is concluded here that the cameralists sounded themes that continue to resonate in much of modern American public administration, but that these themes may not be as relevant to a constitutional republic as they were to the absolutist regimes of Germany and Austria.

Begins with a brief overview of how public administration emerged as the positivist theory and technocratic practice of the modern administrative state. The question then becomes: To what extent has public administration been affected by the societal shift toward postmodernism? The author argues that public administration has moved some distance away from its positivist origins; however, the transformation of public administration is still incomplete. The author concludes that public administration should pay more attention to the recent developments of post‐positivist methods of analysis rather than attempting to adopt all the tenets of postmodernism. Large bureaucratic organizations remain typically modern, but they should not be either conceptualized or managed as small machines.