Search results

The enshrinement of R v Brown within section 71 Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was celebrated by campaign group ‘We Can’t Consent To This’ (WCCTT) as a means of combating the rough sex defence, and as a victory for women. Yet the practical limitations of this codification suggests that there is more to this claimed victory. In this chapter I suggest that the symbolic effect of the codification of Brown underpinned WCCTT’s celebration, as for the first time the legal treatment of sadomasochistic sex (‘SM sex’) became interwoven with, and inflected by, legislation seeking to target abuse. This approach, influenced by the traditions of radical feminism, represents a departure from a liberal legal method and, I argue, forecloses productive legal reform. In affirming the contemporary relevance of Brown, a case infamously mired in homophobia, the legal harm of SM sex is both improperly considered and improperly addressed. Further, by stitching together Brown and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the law fails to articulate what distinguishes SM sexual practice and abuse. This analysis does not prevent my agreeing that SM sex poses significant challenges to the operation of justice. To conclude, I propose that an approach which seeks to bolster the competence of the court via education, and that distinguishes breathplay from the otherwise monolithic treatment of SM sex (building on section 70 Domestic Abuse Act 2021) will generate better outcomes for both sexual diversity and those who experience gender-based violence.

Ethnography has come of age as a research approach on both sides of the Atlantic, as evidenced by the number of specialist texts and journals now dedicated to the field. Yet relatively recently, a leading UK commentator perceived something to be fundamentally wrong with ethnography (Hammersley, 1990, 1992) and reiterated such concerns (Hammersley, 1995, 2000, 2002, 2007, 2008a, 2008b). This opening chapter examines the thesis that there is a dilemma within ethnography by, first, examining Hammersley's conceptualisation of the problematic state of ethnography in his seminal text of 1992 and, second, to challenge the relevance of his argument today. In the light of Denzin's commentary on the stages of qualitative research development now moving into an era of more abstract and non-traditional forms of research and representation, can the current trends in ethnography be seen so readily as vice or virtue? Or, alternatively, does Hammersley's advocacy of ‘subtle realism’ (Hammersley, 1992, p. 5) resonate with contemporary obligations to produce innovative research that ‘makes a difference’?

This chapter analyzes the subject of critical digital tourism studies and envisions an agenda for technology research and education. Inspired by the insights of this book and the work of scholars in digital humanities and communication (Baym, 2010; Hayles, 2012), the study presents “embedded cognition” as a framework to comprehend the interdependencies between people’s actions and discourses, and technological affordances. It introduces the concept of “turistus digitalis,” discusses theories for conceptualizing society and technology relations, and examines the challenges of transdisciplinarity. This investigation contributes to increasing research reflexivity in understanding how tourism is enacted through digital worlds and how digital technologies evolve through tourism practices.

The purpose of this chapter is to outline new methodological developments in business valuation, with particular attention to how those developments are being used in litigation involving lost profits and the value of operating businesses. In addition to methodological developments, the chapter also includes a discussion of recent legal developments, particularly selected cases that affect the use and standards for business valuation techniques within litigation settings. Finally, the chapter includes a mathematical appendix.