'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.

The validity of publication and citation counts for Sociology and other selected disciplines

The use of bibliometric data is a means of comparing. research productivity and scholarly. impact for individuals, work groups, institutions and nations within and between disciplines. Central to this debate is the notion that disciplines differ in the ways in which,they exchange ideas and disseminate information and therefore have diverse publishing and citation patterns. In this article we use two different approaches to compiling bibliometric data to compare publishing patterns of five different disciplines that encompass Molecular Biology; Administration/Political Science, Psychology,. Philosophy and Sociology/Anthropology. We find that the social sciences differ from each other as well as from the physical sciences in their publication and citation patterns. Further, while the different ways of organizing the data produce somewhat different results, the substantive findings for the general patterning of publications and citations of disciplines are consistent for both data sets. Sociology/Anthropology, when compared with the other disciplines, shows substantial differences across universities.

'Suitable mothers': lesbian and single women and the 'unborn' in Australian parliamentary discourse

Throughout the latter months of 2000 and early 2001, the Australian public, media and parliament were engaged in a long and emotive debate about motherhood. This debate constructed the two main protagonists, the unborn 'child' and the potential mother, with a variety of different and often oppositional identities. The article looks at the way that these subject identities interacted during the debate, starting from the premise that policy making has unintended and unacknowledged material outcomes, and using governmentality as a tool through which to analyse and understand processes of identity manipulation and resistance within policy making. The recent debate concerning the right of lesbian and single women to access new reproductive technologies in Australia is used as a case study. Nominally the debate was about access to IVF technology; in reality, however, the debate was about the governing of women and, in particular, the governing of motherhood identities. The article focuses on the parliamentary debate over the drafting of legislation designed to stop lesbian and single women from accessing these technologies, particularly the utilization of the 'unborn' subject within these debates as a device to discipline the identity of 'mother'.