'Why does cultural studies want history?'

Cultural studies has often been accused of maintaining too strong a focus on the contemporary and the immediate as a result of its primary interest in popular culture and the media. The role of history, such criticisms suggest, has been displaced by this contemporary emphasis. Nonetheless, much cultural studies work takes a principled stand on the necessity of historicising the products of its research. Consequently, it is worth asking, with British historian Carolyn Steedman--'why does cultural studies want history?' This article begins to answer that question through the discussion of some aspects of a specific research project within Australian cultural studies.

Impact numbers: measures of risk factor impact on the whole population from case-control and cohort studies

Objective: To describe new measures of risk from case-control and cohort studies, which are simple to understand and relate to numbers of the population at risk. Design: Theoretical development of new measures of risk. Setting: Review of literature and previously described measures. Main results: The new measures are: (1) the population impact number (PIN), the number of those in the whole population among whom one case is attributable to the exposure or risk factor (this is equivalent to the reciprocal of the population attributable risk),- (2) the case impact number (CIN) the number of people with the disease or outcome for whom one case will be attributable to the exposure or risk factor (this is equivalent to the reciprocal of the population attributable fraction); (3) the exposure impact number (EIN) the number of people with the exposure among whom one excess case is attributable to the exposure (this is equivalent to the reciprocal of the attributable risk); (4) the exposed cases impact number (ECIN) the number of exposed cases among whom one case is attributable to the exposure (this is equivalent to the reciprocal of the aetiological fraction). The impact number reflects the number of people in each population (the whole population, the cases, all those exposed, and the exposed cases) among whom one case is attributable to the particular risk factor. Conclusions: These new measures should help communicate the impact on a population, of estimates of risk derived from cohort or case-control studies.

Alcohol, tobacco and breast cancer - collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 58 515 women with breast cancer and 95 067 women without the disease

Alcohol and tobacco consumption are closely correlated and published results on their association with breast cancer have not always allowed adequately for confounding between these exposures. Over 80% of the relevant information worldwide on alcohol and tobacco consumption and breast cancer were collated, checked and analysed centrally. Analyses included 58515 women with invasive breast cancer and 95067 controls from 53 studies. Relative risks of breast cancer were estimated, after stratifying by study, age, parity and, where appropriate, women's age when their first child was born and consumption of alcohol and tobacco. The average consumption of alcohol reported by controls from developed countries was 6.0 g per day, i.e. about half a unit/drink of alcohol per day, and was greater in ever-smokers than never-smokers, (8.4 g per day and 5.0 g per day, respectively). Compared with women who reported drinking no alcohol, the relative risk of breast cancer was 1.32 (1.19 - 1.45, P < 0.00001) for an intake of 35 - 44 g per day alcohol, and 1.46 (1.33 - 1.61, P < 0.00001) for greater than or equal to 45 g per day alcohol. The relative risk of breast cancer increased by 7.1% (95% CI 5.5-8.7%; P

'Vigilant Hospitality': The Online Imperative and Teaching Cultural Studies

Information technology (IT) sees information as a fluid, to be stored, regulated and exchanged. This is a profoundly economic model, whose dreams are those of the marketplace – and now, university managers. But no teacher, of course, holds that teaching can be reduced to the movement of information from one point to another. Teaching is never quite absorbed into the models of IT. Where they meet, we do not have the utopia of the virtual classroom, at last freed from the strictures of timetables and the face-to-face; we have, rather, the grinding of two radically irreducible models. This has nothing to do with Luddism; on the contrary, it is the value and necessity of IT for us at present, as teachers. At a time when the tertiary sector’s massive investment in IT is motivated in part by its own dream of the teacherless classroom, one of the pressing tasks for us may be simply to argue as rigorously as we can the structural necessity of our own position as teachers, without nostalgia or humanist sentimentality.

Amphitheater staging: In-the-round or to the front (and what about asides)?

When the existence in Utrecht of the DeWitt/Van Buchel drawing of the Swan Theater became known in 1888, William Poel was already seven years into his inquiries into the best means of staging the public amphitheater and great hall plays of the English Renaissance.1 I mention this to emphasize that the discourse came before the fact: the belief that Shakespeare's plays are best staged as it was then imprecisely imagined they had once been staged-simply, without elaborate settings or time-consuming scene changes, with direct actor-audience address, "in-the-round"-had as much to do with reactions against the late nineteenth-century stage's pictorialism, with its set-changing interruptions and cut-and-paste revisions to Shakespeare's texts, as it had to do with presenting the Bard "authentically." Some of the confusion caused by the uneasy mixing of historical scholarship and the assumptions and practices of our own contemporary theater profession can be glimpsed in the phenomenon of modern in-the-round staging, often claimed as a more "authentic" approach to Shakespeare in performance, but one which is then modified to make possible post-Stanislavsky acting methods and to satisfy modern audience expectations.