Theorizing Literacy, Politics and Social Process: revisiting Maktab literacy in Rian in search of a paradigm

Literacy as a social practice is integrally linked with social, economic and political institutions and processes. As such, it has a material base which is fundamentally constituted in power relations. Literacy is therefore interwoven with the text and context of everyday living in which multi-levelled meanings are organically produced at both individual and societal level. This paper argues that if language thus mediates social reality, then it follows that literacy defined as a social practice cannot really be addressed as a reified, neutral activity but that it should take account of the social, cultural and political processes in which literacy practices are embedded. Drawing on the work of key writers within the field, the paper foregrounds the primary role of the state in defining the forms and levels of literacy required and made available at particular moments within society. In a case-study of the social construction of literacy meanings in pre-revolutionary Iran, it explores the view that the discourse about societal literacy levels has historically constituted a key terrain in which the struggle for control over meaning has taken place. This struggle, it is argued, sets the interests of the state to maintain ideological and political control over the production of knowledge within the culture and society over and against the needs identified by the individual for personal development, empowerment and liberation. In an overall sense, the paper examines existing theoretical perspectives on societal literacy programmes in terms of the scope that they provide for analyses that encompass the multi-levelled power relations that shape and influence dominant discourses on the relative value of literacy for both the individual and society

Occasional publishers: producing and marketing books in England 1771–1844

Purpose – To investigate the way in which a series of related printing businesses, owned by members of the Gye and Balne families in Bath and London from 1771 to 1844, selected and marketed their titles when they ventured into book printing and publishing. Design/methodology/approach – The basis of this research is extensive archival research analyzing primary sources, mainly the books and ephemera printed by the various firms, supported by information in contemporary newspapers and journals and in biographies of printers and publishers. Findings – The focus of these businesses was not solely on production but that marketing was also considered, and that there was each title was conceived and produced with a particular market in mind. In doing so it provides evidence of relatively advanced marketing strategies in use before 1850 and thus questions the validity of the four-eras model of marketing history. Research limitations/implications – The available primary sources are limited; while a number of books and other printed items have survived there are no extant accounts, correspondence, or other records for any of the firms that were studied. Originality/value – There has been very little research into the way small businesses during this period approached the marketing of their products. This paper is a potential model for further such historical research and also provides an example of how research into specific companies can illuminate the larger history of marketing, potentially changing the way in which we understand the development of consumer society.

Non-display uses of digital works: Google Books and beyond

With the advent of mass digitization projects, such as the Google Book Search, a peculiar shift has occurred in the way that copyright works are dealt with. Contrary to what has so far been the case, works are turned into machine-readable data to be automatically processed for various purposes without the expression of works being displayed to the public. In the Google Book Settlement Agreement, this new kind of usage is referred to as ‘non-display uses’ of digital works. The legitimacy of these uses has not yet been tested by Courts and does not comfortably fit in the current copyright doctrine, plainly because the works are not used as works but as something else, namely as data. Since non-display uses may prove to be a very lucrative market in the near future, with the potential to affect the way people use copyright works, we examine non-display uses under the prism of copyright principles to determine the boundaries of their legitimacy. Through this examination, we provide a categorization of the activities carried out under the heading of ‘non-display uses’, we examine their lawfulness under the current copyright doctrine and approach the phenomenon from the spectrum of data protection law that could apply, by analogy, to the use of copyright works as processable data.

A framework for English? Or a vehicle for literacy? English teaching in England in the age of the Strategy

This article considers the evolution and impact on schools in England of the "Framework for English" since its introduction in 2001, a national initiative that follows on from the National Literacy Strategy, which focused on primary schools. Whilst acknowledging that the Framework is part of a whole school policy, "The Key Stage Three Strategy", I concentrate on its direct impact on the school subject "English" and on standards within that subject. Such a discussion must incorporate some consideration of the rise of "Literacy" as a dominant term and theme in England (and globally) and its challenge to a politically controversial and much contested curriculum area, i.e. "English". If the Framework is considered within the context of the Literacy drive since the mid-1990s then it can be see to be evolving within a much changed policy context and therefore likely to change substantially in the next few years. In a global context England has been regarded for some time as at the extreme edge of standards-driven policy and practice. It is hoped that the story of "English" in England may be salutary to educators from other countries.