Search results

Post-pandemic renewal has to be much more radical. In this chapter we develop a considered response to reimagining the public sector with a focus on Liverpool City Region, its local economy and local government. By drawing on wider ideas of new municipalism, new narratives of how to make local economies more social through public investment, accountability and democratic governance can be made. The local scale offers the frame through which this can be examined as we make the case for new municipalism in the Liverpool City Region.

As scholar-activists we have been involved in responding to the continuous austerity imposed on local government. We research and debate the social and economic problems faced in the Liverpool City Region and present some of our findings here. In our work, through an organisation known as ‘Beacon’ – a grass roots movement agitating for new municipalism – we make the case for new policy initiatives and seek to demonstrate a need for a different type of public sector reform through local government.

In the context of the ‘levelling up’ agenda of the UK government, there remains concern across the city region about how local government can function given the ongoing austerity imposed from the centre. We have a public sector that has faced disinvestment in communities for over a decade and because of this, we reimagine public sector renewal by advocating for a new municipalism based on strategies of economic and political innovation that can lead to greater levels of democracy, accountability, wealth creation and distribution. We show examples outside of the UK, such as in the US and Spain, where embryonic forms of new municipalism are evident.

Our work sets out a roadmap to achieve a new municipalist agenda in the Liverpool City Region through an activist movement, Beacon. We bring together ideas and practices that are often underway elsewhere that have real political and economic impacts. In articulating the need for renewal, not only must we critically reflect on underpinning problems but seek to campaign for the change we advocate. The challenge we face is one of coordination and scale.

To set the context for this edited collection by situating the discussion within both a global setting as well as examining the development and framing of processes, initiatives, policy paradigms and theoretical models which have shaped contemporary discourse and practice.

To draw on extant and current academic literature, contemporary thinking derived from policy organisations, think tanks and governmental institutions but also draw on the experience and insights provided by the contributors.

There are three core findings drawn prior to March 2022. Firstly, that the overall impact of the Global Financial Crash of 2008 and COVID-19 marks a new paradigm shift that will, more likely, shape thinking over the next decade; secondly, global attention to the climate emergency and sustainability agendas suggest that new forms of locally led responses will be necessary; and thirdly, the perceived political uncertainty of the institutions of the European Union and the USA make the stability of the policy making process and its responses to COVID-19 or the Climate Emergency much less predictable over the next 5–10 years.

This series of essays reflects the work undertaken by each of those contributing to the collection. Each author was invited to start with their primary research focus and to take their ideas and thinking for a ‘walk’ in order to stimulate discussion, novel thinking and different approaches to policy dilemmas.

Purpose – The objectives of this study are to explore how consumers achieve, maintain, and/or regain privacy and to more fully understand the meaning consumers ascribe to privacy.

Methodology/approach – Image-elicited depth interviews were conducted on a theoretical sample of 23 informants.

Findings – Consumers are active participants who assert their dominance in the marketplace and resist organizational practices that impinge upon their privacy. Seven categories of privacy management practices were identified: withdraw, defend, feint, neutralize, attack, perception management, and reconcile. The findings also reveal that when informants desire privacy and engage in these practices, they are ultimately in a quest for the meta-goal of sovereignty over their respective personal domains.

Research limitations/implications – This study provides support for and expands upon knowledge of the privacy management practices identified in extant literature, and offers an encompassing conceptualization of privacy as it applies in the context of contemporary consumption.

Social implications – This study may assist policy makers and managers in their efforts to develop appropriate solutions to manage consumers’ privacy concerns and support them in their pursuit of privacy.

Originality/value of the paper – This study injects the voice of the consumer into the privacy debate. A broad theoretical framework for understanding what consumers mean when they talk about privacy and the practices they engage in to “do privacy” is presented. It is hoped that this study provides a basis for managing consumer privacy concerns and future research on the issue so that improved outcomes can be attained for all.

Purpose – To better understand how some users enjoy using Facebook as it breaks the tension between their desire to stare and the social norm dictating one should not stare.

Methodology – An interpretivist methodology was employed to understand why staring behaviour was so attractive to some Facebook users. 11 Facebook users took part in the study and were observed using Facebook, interviewed about their time online and asked to discuss posts that they had stared at in the past.

Findings – From the study it was shown that staring was commonplace on Facebook and ranged from harmless information searching to more extreme forms of Schadenfreude Staring. Regardless of the staring behaviour, the motivation remained constant. That is, Facebook allowed the users to engage in behaviour that is often stigmatised in offline settings.

Implications – This research highlights the importance of online behaviour as a release from offline tension and constraint. The research also highlights how some users may be actively engaging in behaviour online that offline may be deemed unsuitable or deviant.

Originality – Although much literature has looked at the role of online environments in identity formation, very little has looked at the role of online engagement as a means to specifically break with offline social norms. This research also highlights the growing trend of seeking information that elicits a sensation of Schadenfreude for the viewer. Further research should look to see how other forms of behaviour would elicit similar feelings of Schadenfreude and what implications this has on consumer culture.

Learners with autism require specialized education and supports to ensure acquisition and mastery of various communication skills. This is particularly true for individuals whose disability significantly impacts their language development. Without functional communication, these individuals often engage in severe behavior, have reduced self-determination, and experience diminished quality of life. Accordingly, researchers in special education and related fields have sought ways to improve the communication skills of learners with autism who need specialized language and communication interventions. Although the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) is well-established in the empirical literature and has helped countless individuals learn to communicate, the method known as facilitated communication (FC; which also is being called “supported typing” and “rapid prompting method”) has become increasingly popular in recent years. Few methods in special education have been as thoroughly discredited as FC and perhaps none are as dangerous. This chapter contrasts the thoroughly debunked FC and its pseudoscientific characteristics with those underpinning PECS. A brief historical account of each method is provided along with key scientific and pseudoscientific features that distinguish science from pseudoscience. Ultimately, our intent is to further clarify how FC is not an augmentative or alternative communication method and why PECS is.