Suchergebnisse

Since the mid-1990s institutions such as national libraries and the Internet Archive have been 'archiving the Web' through the harvesting, collection and preservation of 'web objects' (e.g. websites, web pages, social media) in web archives [55]. Much of the focus of the web archiving community has been on the continued development of technologies and practices for web collection development [38], with an increased attention in recent years on facilitating the scholarly use of web archives [25, 24, 61]. This research will take a step back to consider the place of web archives in light of 'the archival turn' and emergent questions over the ever- expansive role of the archive and the Web in everyday life. First coined by Stoler [81], 'the archival turn' denotes a shift from 'archive as source' to 'archive as subject,' signalling wide-ranging epistemological questions concerning the role of the archive (and the archivist) in shaping and legitimising knowledge and particular ways of knowing. This research proposes to re-situate web archives as places of knowledge and cultural production in their own right, by implicating both the web archivist and the technologies in the shaping of the 'politics of ephemerality' [82] that lead to the creation and maintenance of web archives. This study will identify key underlying assumptions about what the Web is (e.g. a 'Web of Documents,' 'abstract information space'), what of the contemporary Web is (or isn't) being archived, and the relative affordances for web archival practice and scholarly use. Furthermore, drawing on critical approaches to information, Science and Technology Studies and Web Science, this research will engage with the performativity of web archiving, the practices of selection, collection and classification, and the possible implications for a socio-technical understanding of web archives.

At a time of rising right-wing populism, the heightened political salience of immigration as an issue is linked to conceptions of 'the national'. In this article, we analyse tweets from non-elites, defined as isolated users with low network influence, engaged in a 'conversation' about migration on Twitter. We investigate the values embedded in these attitudes, and what these tell us about constructions and contestations of the symbolic boundaries of the nation amongst ordinary people. Our corpus includes tweets posted in temporal proximity to the lifting of transitional controls on Romanian and Bulgarian migrants in the UK (1 October 2013 to 1 March 2014). Thematic analysis reveals a cohesive set of anti-immigrant/immigration sentiments linked to UKIP and that express an exclusionary nationalism based on assumptions about race, 'whiteness' and entitlement. Also evident is a counter-narrative of pro-immigration sentiments that draw on multiple and sometimes contradictory values. Some of these values contest racialized understandings of the nation but do not coalesce in ways to disrupt the dominance of right-wing anti-immigrant sentiments on Twitter. Our findings demonstrate the importance of investigating values embedded in both anti and pro-immigration attitudes amongst non-elites and what these values indicate about the possibilities of re-framing migration debates amongst non-elites in ways that construct more inclusive symbolic national boundaries. Additionally, in using the networked properties of Twitter engagement to identify non-elite users, we make a methodological contribution to scholarship on immigration attitudes.

At a time of rising right-wing populism, the heightened political salience of immigration as an issue is linked to conceptions of 'the national'. In this article, we analyse tweets from non-elites, defined as isolated users with low network influence, engaged in a 'conversation' about migration on Twitter. We investigate the values embedded in these attitudes, and what these tell us about constructions and contestations of the symbolic boundaries of the nation among ordinary people. Our corpus includes tweets posted in temporal proximity to the lifting of transitional controls on Romanian and Bulgarian migrants in the UK (1 October 2013 to 1 March 2014). Thematic analysis reveals a cohesive set of anti-immigrant or anti-immigration sentiments linked to UKIP and that express an exclusionary nationalism based on assumptions about race, 'whiteness' and entitlement. Also evident is a counter-narrative of pro-immigration sentiments that draw on multiple and sometimes contradictory values. Some of these values contest racialised understandings of the nation but do not coalesce in ways to disrupt the dominance of right-wing anti-immigrant sentiments on Twitter. Our findings demonstrate the importance of investigating values embedded in both anti and pro-immigration attitudes among non-elites and what these values indicate about the possibilities of re-framing migration debates among non-elites in ways that construct more inclusive symbolic national boundaries. In addition, in using the networked properties of Twitter engagement to identify non-elite users, we make a methodological contribution to scholarship on immigration attitudes.

Over the past few years increasing attention has been given to the role of international organizations in the diffusion of policy ideas and promotion of particular macro‐level policies. Much of the attention has been on the ideological driving forces behind such policies, and on the extent to which the policies are externally imposed. There has been limited discussion on the bread‐and‐butter, technical policies of international organizations, and how they devise, adopt, adapt, and then promote what come to be seen as policies of global "best practice." This paper seeks to redress this gap by looking at the process of transfer of two infectious disease policies between international and national levels. It demonstrates that international organizations play different roles in policy transfer at particular stages in the process. The paper suggests that health policy transfer is a long adaptive process, made up of several iterative loops, as research and clinical practices developed in one or more countries are adopted, adapted, and taken up by international organizations which then mobilize support for particular policies, market, and promote them. Assumptions that new ideas about policies flow "rationally" into existing decision making are challenged by the processes analyzed here. Policy transfer, given the experience of these infectious diseases policies, goes through separate, "bottom‐up," research‐oriented, and "top‐down" marketing‐oriented loops. Individuals and different configurations of networks play key roles linking these loops. In the process, complex, context‐specific policies are repackaged into simplified guidelines for global best practice, leading to considerable contestation within the policy networks.

This review by the International Center for Research on Women explores the specific issues that cluster around the provision of care in the context of the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. With the support of the Population Council's Horizons program, this review applies the care economy lens to two key sectors, health and social protection, and finds that while important strides are being made, much more needs to be known and done to enable individuals, families, and households to survive in a world shaken by AIDS. The report documents the challenges faced by family care providers, who are primarily women and unlinked to existing services; responses by the health sector and the community to support caregivers, including the involvement of youth and men in caregiving; and government- and private-sector–sponsored social protection programs to help sustain the safety nets of households affected by HIV/AIDS.

Over the past few years increasing attention has been given to the role of international organizations in the diffusion of policy ideas & promotion of particular macrolevel policies. Much of the attention has been on the ideological driving forces behind such policies, & on the extent to which the policies are externally imposed. There has been limited discussion on the bread-&-butter, technical policies of international organizations, & how they devise, adopt, adapt, & then promote what come to be seen as policies of global "best practice." This paper seeks to redress this gap by looking at the process of transfer of two infectious disease policies between international & national levels. It demonstrates that international organizations play different roles in policy transfer at particular stages in the process. The paper suggests that health policy transfer is a long adaptive process, made up of several iterative loops, as research & clinical practices developed in one or more countries are adopted, adapted, & taken up by international organizations which then mobilize support for particular policies, market, & promote them. Assumptions that new ideas about policies flow "rationally" into existing decision making are challenged by the processes analyzed here. Policy transfer, given the experience of these infectious diseases policies, goes through separate, "bottom-up," research-oriented, & "top-down" marketing-oriented loops. Individuals & different configurations of networks play key roles linking these loops. In the process, complex, context-specific policies are repackaged into simplified guidelines for global best practice, leading to considerable contestation within the policy networks. 61 References. Adapted from the source document.

In today's globalizing world the nature of relationships between the North and South is changing to account for the closing gap in capacity to carry out research of international standard. The development of a lexicon sophisticated enough to address adequately these changing relationships, however, lags behind and is not supported by the current recourse to the jargon of 'partnership'. In this paper we explore the difficulties of negotiating a productive path through the dynamics of power and control that characterize international research collaborations. We call attention to this issue through recounting the story of the development of two quite different, but related, international research relationships in which we have been involved. We suggest that there is an important difference between those aspects of the relationship that respond to institutional needs and agendas and those aspects that relate more directly to the human relationships upon which the work in the field actually depends. We set out this difference in a tentative framework, where the relationship between researchers is labelled 'partnership' and the institutional relationship 'collaboration'. It is hoped that, by its inclusion in a journal on social policy, this paper may also stimulate discussion on the extent to which these issues are particular to international relationships or are, indeed, generalizable to national‐level partnerships and collaborations within the UK and Europe.

From the outset, the Web has been steered by powerful commitments to 'openness': in its technical requirements - open standards, protocols; and in the promotion of free and open information exchange. The mutual co-construction of conceptualisations of the Web as both an embodiment and facilitator of 'openness' is not without its problems, however. In this brief (deliberately provocative) discussion we explore ways in which treating openness as a 'universal good' ignores (and marginalises) diversity in cultural practice and obscures the structures of power and control embedded in the processes of the cultural appropriation of knowledge. In this way, questioning the Web's 'openness' is a mechanism by which to explore the digital divide, the inherent politics of the Web as a socio-technical infrastructure and the historical processes that have led to its continued development.