Finding the 'first voice' in rural England: the challenges of safeguarding intangible heritage in a national museum

This paper is an attempt to explore the challenges of defining intangible heritage and ‘community’ in England. It uses as its case study the Museum of English Rural Life, University of Reading: an urban museum with a rural theme. The paper examines current theoretical discourse around the concept of the ‘first voice’ and debate about the role of museums in the preservation of intangible heritage. It then examines the relevance of these concepts to the identification of ‘rural’ intangible heritage stake holders in England. In this way, it shows the potential for concepts of intangible heritage to influence national museums. However, by applying theory and practice which is designed to support work with well-defined ‘originating communities’ to a national museum, it also highlights the challenges of initiating community engagement in a multicultural society.

What is poverty? A diachronic exploration of the discourse on poverty from the 1970s to the 2000s

Poverty is central to the concept of development. However, the relevance given to particular aspects of poverty has changed over the years and with it the manner in which poverty has been represented. The following paper explores how concepts of poverty within the 'poverty discourse' have altered over a 30-year period. A diachronic analysis is performed to explore changes in the topical and thematic composition of the definitions, in addition to the manner in which poverty has been 'framed'. The results illustrated that poverty was variably framed across the decades ranging from a 'neutral' fact to a highly contested state with little agreement over causes and consequences. Nevertheless, the relational analysis revealed the de-problematization of poverty over time. The finding has clear implications for development praxis: poverty needs to be 'attacked', but the root causes, at least from a discursive perspective, may be ignored.

Type specimens of G.E. Post in Beirut and The Natural History Museum, London

The Flora of Syria, Palestine and Sinai, a pioneer Flora of the region, was published in 1896 by George Edward Post (1838–1909). Lesser known are his series of Diagnoses plantarum novarum orientalium, published in the Journal of the Linnean Society Botany, and 10 papers, Plantae Postianae, which appeared in Swiss journals from 1890 to 1900. A greatly expanded second edition of the Flora was prepared by John Edward Dinsmore and published in Beirut in 1932 and 1933. Post's plant collection is part of the Post Herbarium (BEI), with about 63 000 specimens, that has been well maintained, despite civil war and inadequate staffing. This work involves the identification of around 150 types in BEI and BM, and improvement of the accessibility of the specimens. © 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 159, 315–321.

Dilettantes, discipline and discourse: requirements management for construction

Requirements management (RM), as practised in the aerospace and defence sectors, attracts interest from construction researchers in response to longstanding problems of project definition. Doubts are expressed whether RM offers a new discipline for construction practitioners or whether it repeats previous exhortations to adopt a more disciplined way of working. Whilst systems engineering has an established track record of addressing complex technical problems, its extension to socially complex problems has been challenged. The dominant storyline of RM is one of procedural rationality and RM is commonly presented as a means of controlling dilettante behaviour. Interviews with RM practitioners suggest a considerable gulf between the dominant storyline in the literature and how practitioners operate in practice. The paper challenges construction researchers interested in RM to reflect more upon the theoretical debates that underpin current equivalent practices in construction and the disparity between espoused and enacted practice.

On the discourse of construction competitiveness

It is contended that competitiveness is better understood as a discourse rather than as a characteristic that is supposedly possessed. The discourse of competitiveness derives its legitimacy from the enterprise culture that came to dominance during the 1980s. Current popularized theories of competitiveness are constituent parts of this broader discourse, which has had significant material implications for the UK construction sector. The dominant discourse of competitiveness amongst contracting firms is shaped by the need to achieve structural flexibility to cope with fluctuations in demand. Fashionable espoused improvement recipes such as total quality management, business process re-engineering, and lean construction legitimize and reinforce the material manifestations of the enterprise culture. In consequence, the UK industry is characterized by a plethora of hollowed-out firms that have failed to invest in their human capital. While the adopted model may be rational for individual firms, the systemic effect across the sector as a whole equates to a form of anorexia. However, the discourse of competitiveness is by no means monolithic and continues to be contested locally. There have also been numerous counter-discourses that have been mobilized in response to the undesirable externalities of unbridled enterprise. Currently, important counter-discourses promote the ideas of sustainability and corporate social responsibility.