Violence and Commemoration in the New Northern Ireland: Space, Memory and Management

On June 27th 2012, the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and former IRA commander, Martin McGuinness shook hands with Queen Elizabeth II for the first time at an event in Belfast. For many the gesture symbolised the consolidation of Northern Ireland's transition to peace, the meeting of cultures and traditions, and hope for the future. Only a few weeks later however violence spilled onto the streets of north and west Belfast following a series of commemorative parades, marking a summer of hostilities. Those hostilities spread into a winter of protest, riot and discontent around flags and emblems and a year of tensions and commemorative-related violence marked again by a summer of rioting and protest in 2013. Outwardly these examples present two very different pictures of the 'new' Northern Ireland; the former of a society moving forward and putting the past behind it and the latter apparently divided over and wedded to different constructions of the past. Furthermore they revealed two very different 'places', the public handshake in the arena of public space; the rioting and fighting occurring in spaces distanced from the public sphere. This paper has also illustrated the difficulties around the ‘public management’ of conflict and transition as many within public agencies struggle with duties to uphold good relations and promote good governance within an environment of political strife, hostility and continuing violence.

This paper presents the key findings and implications of an exploratory project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, explored the phenomenon of commemorative-related violence in Northern Ireland. We focus on 1) why the performance or celebration of the past can sometimes lead to violence in specific places; 2) map and analyse the levels of commemorative related violence in the past 15 years and 3) look at the public management implications of both conflict and transition at a strategic level within the public sector.

Corneal structure and biomechanics: impact on the diagnosis and management of glaucoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW:

Highlights recent studies relating to the impact of corneal structure and biomechanical properties on glaucoma evaluation and management.

RECENT FINDINGS:

Central corneal thickness has been shown to play a role in the interpretation of intraocular pressure. Central corneal thickness has also been suggested as a glaucoma risk factor. The potential role of other corneal factors, such as stromal makeup, in the accurate measurement of intraocular pressure and the assessment of glaucoma risk remains to be determined.

SUMMARY:

Improved understanding of central corneal thickness and corneal biomechanical properties may someday lead to a better understanding of glaucoma risk and its assessment.

The value of tests in the diagnosis and management of glaucoma.

PURPOSE:

To assess the noneconomic value of tests used in the diagnosis and management of glaucoma, and explore the contexts and factors that determine such value.

DESIGN:

Perspective.

METHODS:

Selected articles from primary and secondary sources were reviewed and interpreted in the context of the authors' clinical and research experience, influenced by our perspectives on the tasks of reducing the global problem of irreversible blindness caused by glaucoma. The value of any test used in glaucoma is addressed by 3 questions regarding: its contexts, its kind of value, and its implicit or explicit benefits.

RESULTS:

Tonometry, slit-lamp gonioscopy, and optic disc evaluation remain the foundation of clinic-based case finding, whether in areas of more or less abundant resources. In resource-poor areas, there is urgency in identifying patients at risk for severe functional loss of vision; screening strategies have proven ineffective, and efforts are hindered by the inadequate allocation of support. In resource-abundant areas, the wider spectrum of glaucoma is addressed, with emphasis on early detection of structural changes of little functional consequence; these are increasingly the focus of new and expensive technologies whose clinical value has not been established in longitudinal and population-based studies. These contrasting realities in part reflect differences among the value ascribed, often implicitly, to the tests used in glaucoma.

CONCLUSIONS:

The value of any test is determined by 3 aspects: its context of usage; its comparative worth and to whom its benefit accrues; and how we define historically what we are testing. These multiple factors