The concept of transport capacity and its use in different geomorphic process domains

The notion of sediment-transport capacity has been engrained in geomorphological and related literature for over 50 years, although its earliest roots date back explicitly to Gilbert in fluvial geomorphology in the 1870s and implicitly to eighteenth to nineteenth century developments in engineering. Despite cross fertilization between different process domains, there seem to have been independent inventions of the idea in aeolian geomorphology by Bagnold in the 1930s and in hillslope studies by Ellison in the 1940s. Here we review the invention and development of the idea of transport capacity in the fluvial, aeolian, coastal, hillslope, débris flow, and glacial process domains. As these various developments have occurred, different definitions have been used, which makes it both a difficult concept to test, and one that may lead to poor communications between those working in different domains of geomorphology. We argue that the original relation between the power of a flow and its ability to transport sediment can be challenged for three reasons. First, as sediment becomes entrained in a flow, the nature of the flow changes and so it is unreasonable to link the capacity of the water or wind only to the ability of the fluid to move sediment. Secondly, environmental sediment transport is complicated, and the range of processes involved in most movements means that simple relationships are unlikely to hold, not least because the movement of sediment often changes the substrate, which in turn affects the flow conditions. Thirdly, the inherently stochastic nature of sediment transport means that any capacity relationships do not scale either in time or in space. Consequently, new theories of sediment transport are needed to improve understanding and prediction and to guide measurement and management of all geomorphic systems.

Comparing long-term placements for young children in care: Does type of placement really matter?

This paper presents findings from the third phase of a longitudinal study, entitled Care Pathways and Outcomes, which has been tracking the placements and measuring outcomes for a population of children (n = 374) who were under the age of five and in care in Northern Ireland on the 31st March 2000. It explores how a sub-sample of these children at age nine to 14 years old were getting on in the placements provided for them, in comparative terms across five placement types: adoption; foster care; kinship foster care (with relatives); on Residence Order; and living with birth parents. This specifically focused on the development of attachment and self-concept from the perspective of the children, and behavioural and emotional function, and parenting stress, from the perspective of parents and carers. Findings showed no significant placement effect from the perspective of children, and a statistically weak, but descriptively compelling, effect from the perspective of parents. The findings challenge the notion of adoption as the gold standard in long-term placements, specifically from the perspective of children in terms of their parent/carer attachments and self-concept, and highlight what appears to be the central importance of placement longevity for delivering positive longer-term outcomes for these children, irrespective of placement type.

Overlapping Notions of Self and Other: the Case of the Anabaptist Body

This paper examines the complex interrelations between notions of ͚“elf͛ and ͚Otheƌ͛ with regards to human bodies, taking as a case study the bodily experiences of Anabaptist Christians, both historically and in the present day. It first examines body practices and discourses through the lens of Anabaptist approaches to baptism and conscience and it relates these to the Foucauldian notion of care of the Self. It then looks at biopolitical relations between individuals and the state through an examination of oath-taking and anti-war protests. Finally, it discusses the roles of bodies and bodiliness in contemporary Anabaptist commemorative practices.