‘‘Capital of Culture - you must be having a laugh!” Challenging the official rhetoric of Liverpool as the 2008 European cultural capital’

Major cultural events are increasingly seen by local stakeholders as important opportunities to stimulate urban regeneration, city branding and economic development. The European Capital of Culture programme is a prominent example. Since 1985 over thirty cities have hosted the title and today it remains a highly sought-after prize. This paper analyses competing interpretations of the success of Liverpool's hosting of the European Capital of Culture in 2008. It unpacks contrasting views of Liverpool08, from the official triumphant message of urban regeneration and economic renaissance to more critical analyses that problematise important elements of the event and its social and spatial impacts. In so doing, it challenges the hyperbole of culture-led transformation to reveal different geographies of culture, different cultural experiences and different socio-economic realities; it also offers an additional cultural reading of Liverpool in 2008. Through the example of Liverpool this paper shows how local culture is politicised, manipulated and sanitised in order to stimulate urban regeneration and construct a spatial re-branding of the city.

De grands événements culturels sont de plus en plus perçus par les rentiers locaux comme des opportunités importantes pour stimuler la régénération urbaine, produire la devise des villes et le développement économique. L'initiative La Capitale Européenne de la Culture est un exemple proéminent. Depuis 1985, plus de trente villes ont accueilli le titre et maintenant il reste un prix largement recherché. Cet article analyse des interprétations en concurrence du succès de l'accueil de Liverpool de la Capitale Européenne de la Culture en 2008. Il déballe des vues contrastées de Liverpool08, du message officiel et triomphal de la régénération urbaine et de la renaissance économique à des analyses plus critiques qui problématisent des éléments importants de l'événement et ses impacts sociaux et spatiaux. De cette façon, il conteste l'hyperbole de la transformation menée par la culture pour révéler des géographies différentes de la culture, des expériences différentes de la culture et des réalités socioéconomiques différentes; il offre aussi une interprétation culturelle différente de Liverpool en 2008. Au travers de l'exemple de Liverpool cet article montre comment la culture locale est politisée, manipulée et aseptisée pour stimuler la régénération urbaine et construire un relookage spatial de la ville.

Cada vez más, los inversores locales vean a los eventos culturales como oportunidades importantes para estimular regeneración urbana, el desarollo económico y la branding a una ciudad. El Capital Europeo de Cultura es un ejemplo prominente. Desde 1985, más que treinta ciudades han presentado el título y hoy sigue siendo un premio deseable. Este papel se analiza interpretaciones competitivos del éxito del Capital Europea de Cultura 2008 en Liverpool. Se deshace las perspectivas opuestas del Liverpool08, del mensaje triunfante de regeneración urbana y renacimiento económico, a analices críticos que problematizan elementos importantes del evento y sus impactos sociales y espaciales. Al hacer esto, se cuestiona el hipérbole de la transformación cultural para revelar geografías diferentes de cultura, experiencias culturales diferentes y realidades diferentes socio-económicas; también ofrece un entendimiento cultural adicional de Liverpool en el 2008. Através el ejemplo de Liverpool, este papel demuestra como la cultura local está politizada, manipulada, y desinfectado para estimular regeneración urbana y construir una nueva branding de la ciudad.

English Heritage Official Guidebook to the monuments of Avebury.:The prehistoric monuments of Avebury

Malone, C., 1990, (numerous reprints and in several languages), London, HBMC-English Heritage.

English Heritage Official Guidebook to the monuments of Avebury.:The Prehistoric Monuments of Avebury

Malone, C., 1990, (numerous reprints and several languages), London, HBMC-English Heritage.

An official American thoracic society research statement: Comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine

Background: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to inform decision making in clinical practice, and is central to patientcentered outcomes research (PCOR). Purpose: To summarize key aspects of CER definitions and provide examples highlighting the complementary nature of efficacy and CER studies in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Methods: An ad hoc working group of the American Thoracic Society with experience in clinical trials, health services research, quality improvement, and behavioral sciences in pulmonary, critical care, and sleepmedicinewas convened. The group used an iterative consensus process, including a reviewbyAmerican Thoracic Society committees and assemblies. Results: The traditional efficacy paradigm relies on clinical trials with high internal validity to evaluate interventions in narrowly defined populations and in research settings. Efficacy studies address the question, "Can it work in optimal conditions?" The CER paradigm employs a wide range of study designs to understand the effects of interventions in clinical settings. CER studies address the question, "Does it work in practice?" The results of efficacy and CER studies may or may not agree. CER incorporates many attributes of outcomes research and health services research, while placing greater emphasis on meeting the expressed needs of nonresearcher stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, and others). Conclusions: CER complements traditional efficacy research by placing greater emphasis on the effects of interventions in practice, and developing evidence to address the needs of the many stakeholders involved in health care decisions. Stakeholder engagement is an important component of CER. Copyright © 2013 by the American Thoracic Society.

Official histories of parliament and the nature of the union of 1707:a forgotten episode in Anglo-Scottish academic relations

The Scottish Committee on the History of Parliament was established in 1936 as an offshoot of Col. Josiah Wedgwood's scheme for a collaborative ‘history of parliament’ researched and written on biographical lines. Circumstances, however, determined that the Scottish history would take a separate path. When Wedgwood's scheme was revived in 1951 an unsuccessful attempt was made to reintegrate the two projects. Discussions between the respective managing committees were conflicted and often bad-tempered, focussing on different interpretations of the nature of the united parliament created in 1707. The Scottish committee insisted that it was a new constitutional entity, while the English saw it as a continuation of the Westminster parliament with Scottish MPs added. This story of mutual incomprehension illustrates the profound differences between Scottish and English academics in the writing of parliamentary history, and also reveals a hitherto unobserved element in the development among leading Scottish jurists of a strain of ‘legal nationalism’ based on their interpretation of the constitutional significance of the Union.