7 resultados para Press History
em Aston University Research Archive
Resumo:
In this contribution I look at three episodes in the history of neurophysiology that bring out the complex relationship between seeing and believing. I start with Vesalius in the mid-sixteenth century who writes that he can in no way see any cavity in nerves, even in the optic nerves. He thus questions the age-old theory (dating back to the Alexandrians in the third century BC) but, because of the overarching psychophysiology of his time, does not press his case. This conflict between observation and theory persisted for a quarter of a millennium until finally resolved at the beginning of the nineteenth century by the discoveries of Galvani and Volta. The second case is provided by the early history of retinal synaptology. Schultze in 1866 had represented rod spherules and bipolar dendrites in the outer plexiform layer as being separated by a (synaptic) gap, yet in his written account, because of his theoretical commitments, held them to be continuous. Cajal later, 1892, criticized Schultze for this pusillanimity, but his own figure in La Cellule is by no means clear. It was only with the advent of the electron microscopy in the mid-twentieth century that the true complexity of the junction was revealed and it was shown that both investigators were partially right. My final example comes from the Hodgkin-Huxley biophysics of the 1950s. Their theory of the action potential depended on the existence of unseen ion pores with quite complex biophysical characteristics. These were not seen until the Nobel-Prize-winning X-ray diffraction analyses of the early twenty-first century. Seeing, even at several removes, then confirmed Hodgkin and Huxley’s belief. The relation between seeing and believing is by no means straightforward.
Resumo:
William J. Hausman, Peter Hertner, and Mira Wilkins. Global Electrification: Multinational Enterprise and International Finance in the History of Light and Power, 1878–2007. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. xxiv + 487 pp. ISBN 978-0-521-88035-0, $80 (hardcover).
Resumo:
Book review
Resumo:
Book review
Resumo:
Aim: To appraise history and symptom taking for contact lens consultations, to determine current practice and to make recommendations for best practice. Method: The peer reviewed academic literature was reviewed and the results informed a survey completed by 256 eye care practitioners (ECPs) on their current practice and influences. Results: The last eye-test date, last contact lens aftercare (for existing wearers) and reason for visit are key questions for most ECPs. Detailed use of contact lens questions are more commonly applied in aftercares than when refitting patients who have previously discontinued wear (87% vs 56% use), whereas questions on ocular and general history, medication and lifestyle were generally more commonly utilised for new patients than in aftercares (72% vs 50%). 75% of ECPs requested patients bring a list of their medication to appointments. Differential diagnosis questioning was thorough in most ECPs (87% of relevant questions asked). Attempts to optimise compliance included oral instruction (95% always) and written patient instructions (95% at least sometimes). Abbreviations were used by 39% of respondents (26% used ones provided by a professional body). Conclusion: There is scope for more consistency in history and symptom taking for contact lens consultations and recommendations are made.
Resumo:
The history of France and its empires is one that has been well trodden, particularly the French occupation, and subsequent war, in Algeria. In this companion to his earlier work, 2011’s The Colonial Heritage of French Comics,McKinney attempts to examine the reconstruction of French national identity in the wake of decolonisation through the medium of Francophonecomics. He endeavours to study the colonial affrontier (3), the space in which France and its colonies are connected and divided, where they seek to confront each other, or to seek peace and the removal of the division. McKinney argues this affrontier can be found most strongly in the Francophone comics produced dealing with the French colonial experience in Algeria, as well as that of Indochina,and does so from both sides of each conflict. McKinney examines in detail the French colonisation of Algeria (1830sonwards), the French war in Indochina (1946–54) and the Algerian war (1954–62), and his work is the first to approach these well-covered areas of research through the medium of comics. The resulting work takes the form of an investigation into the five forms of genealogical inquiry utilised in comics regarding these conflicts. His approach investigates the familial, ethnic, national, artistic and critical forms of genealogy relating to colonialism and imperialism from a variety of viewpoints, including the previously overlooked perspective of the pieds noirs. He aims to highlight both those cartoonists that critique the colonial ideology, as well as those cartoonists who to some extent attempt to gloss over or even romanticise the French empire, strengthening the affrontier. He positions himself alongside Foucault in seeing genealogy as a useful means of establishing ‘historical knowledge of struggles’ (Foucault1980, 85), but McKinney looks at the colonial representation in a popular medium,including the recent increase in comics produced which consider the French colonial experience. He argues that this consideration of the present, as well as European imperialism, is absent in the work of Foucault. The text is accompanied by a number of black and white facsimiles of pages from the comics he analyses to illustrate the different and often conflicting positions of cartoonists on these issues. Overall, McKinney’s work is a welcome addition to the study of the French colonial experience, which separates its elf from the rest by using Francophonecomics as lenses through which to look at these already well-trodden areas of study. He succeeds in determining if and how cartoonists critique colonial ideology and representations on both sides of the conflicts, a task in which he is unarguably successful. McKinney’s work, however, is unfortunately let down by typo graphicerrors, which occur throughout the text.Nevertheless, McKinney’s work is another important work in the field of Bande Dessine ́e scholarship, and useful for anyone interested in the representations of colonialism and imperialism in French comics, accompanied by anencyclopaedic bibliography of comics produced on this topic.
Resumo:
Book review: Organizations in Time, edited by R Daniel Wadhwani and Marcelo Bucheli, Oxford University Press, 2014. The title of this edited volume is slightly misleading, as its various contributions explore the potential for more historical analysis in organization studies rather than addressing issues associated with time and organizing. Hopefully this will not distract from the important achievement of this volume—important especially for business historians—in further expanding and integrating business history into management and organization studies. The various contributions, elegantly tied together by R. Daniel Wadhwani and Marcelo Bucheli in their substantial introduction (which, by the way, presents a significant contribution in its own right), opens up new sets of questions, especially in terms of future methodological and theoretical developments in the field. This book also reflects the changing institutional location of business historians, who increasingly make their careers in business schools rather than history departments, especially in Europe, reopening old questions of history as a social science. There have been several calls to teach more history in business education, such as the Carnegie Foundation report (2011) that found undergraduate business education too narrow in focus and highlighted the need to integrate more liberal arts teaching into the curriculum. However, in the contemporary research-driven environment of business and management schools, historical understanding is unlikely to permeate the curriculum if historical analysis cannot first deliver significant theoretical contributions. This is the central theme around which this edited volume revolves, and it marks a milestone in this ongoing debate. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I should add that even though I did not contribute to this volume, I have coauthored with several of its contributors and view this book as central to my current research practice.)