An orientation to early childhood education for sustainability and research : framing the text

This publication arose from the interests of the chapter authors, ‘a small group of thoughtful people’ almost all of whom participated in one or both Transnational Dialogues in Research in Early Childhood Education for Sustainability, held in Stavanger, Norway in 2010 and Brisbane, Australia in 2011 (Refer Appendix 1 for list of participants). These meetings were the first time that a critical mass of researchers from vastly different parts of the globe - Norway, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand at the inaugural meeting, with additional participants from Korea, Japan and Singapore attending the second - had come together to debate, discuss and share ideas about research and theory in the emerging field of Early Childhood Education for Sustainability (ECEfS. Some of the researchers who joined these Transnational Dialogues, had met serendipitously at earlier conferences and meetings, or corresponded via email, but many had never met face-to-face. Now a significant number are contributing authors in this text. It is a testament to these researchers’ interest in this agenda that they mostly self-funded their travel and other costs to attend the Transnational Dialogues research meetings. While most chapter authors come from the field of early childhood education, a few are more aligned with education for sustainability/environmental education, while a much smaller number are already working at the intersection of early childhood education and education for sustainability. What we share as a group is a range of perspectives and orientations to research and to the research focus at the heart of this book - young children and their actual and potential capabilities as agents of change for sustainability. As researchers, regardless of experience and perspectives, participants knew they had something extra to offer - their expertise as researchers - providing scholarly insights into the work of practitioners, applying critically reflective lenses to curricula, pedagogies and assumptions, testing of ideas and theories, and presenting a sense for where ECEfS might fit or, indeed, go beyond norms and orthodoxies. This is a text, then, for both researchers and those whose primary interests lie in daily interactions with children, families and communities.

Can skin cancer prevention and early detection be improved via mobile phone text messaging? a randomised, attention-control trial.

Objective. To test the impact of a theory-based, SMS (text message)-delivered behavioural intervention (Healthy Text) targeting sun protection or skin self-examination behaviours compared to attention-control. Method. Overall, 546 participants aged 18–42 years were randomised using a computer-generated number list to the skin self-examination (N = 176), sun protection (N = 187), or attention-control (N = 183) text messages group. Each group received 21 text messages about their assigned topic over 12 months (12 weekly messages for three months, then monthly messages for the next nine months). Data was collected via telephone survey at baseline, three-, and 12-months across Queensland from January 2012 to August 2013. Results. One year after baseline, the sun protection (mean change 0.12; P = 0.030) and skin self-examination groups (mean change 0.12; P = 0.035) had significantly greater improvement in their sun protection habits (SPH) index compared to the attention-control group (reference mean change 0.02). The increase in the proportion of participants who reported any skin self-examination from baseline to 12 months was significantly greater in the skin self-examination intervention group (103/163; 63%; P < 0.001) than the sun protection (83/173; 48%), or attention-control (65/165; 36%) groups. There was no significant effect of the intervention for participants who self-reported whole-body skin self-examination, sun tanning behaviour, or sunburn behaviours. Conclusion. The Healthy Text intervention was effective in inducing significant improvements in sun protection and any type of skin self-examination behaviours.

The Saintly Madman : A Study of the Scholarly Reception History of Buile Shuibhne

This study examines the scholarly reception history of an early Irish text, Buile Shuibhne (The Frenzy of Suibhne), by focusing on the various theoretical and methodological presuppositions which have determined the scholars’ understanding of the text’s religious allegorical significance in the course of the 20th century. The reception-oriented inquiry takes the intersubjective aspect of literary interpretation as the basis for accentuating the importance of communally shared presumptions and reading strategies in the explication of interpretive variety. The materials of the study have been divided into four frameworks of interpretation: historical, pre-Christian, Christian and anthropological. This heuristic division does not denote mutually exclusive paradigms, but rather refers to perceived similarities within each group regarding the questions posed, and the evidence adduced, in textual analysis. The historical framework concentrates on the issues of the origins of the tale and the possible historicity of its main protagonist. The pre-Christian framework covers the theories of the shamanic, Indo-European and Celtic elements in the text, whereas the Christian framework includes readings emphasising the biblical, monastic and ascetic aspects of the tale. The anthropological framework in turn focuses on the parallels drawn between the narrative and the universal structure of the rites of passage. In addition to the examination of these four frameworks, the study also links the question of methodology with wider issues of authorship and textual integrity, and critically reconsiders the manner in which J.G. O'Keeffe's 1913 edition of the text has been reified in previous scholarship as a representation of a 12th century authorial original. The overall objective of the present case-study is to relate theoretical conceptions of literary theory, comparative religion and historiography to the study of early Irish narrative material by considering the communal and institutional dimension of meaning-making, and the implications of comparative methodology for historical research. In this aim, the prevailing methodological presuppositions informing the scholarly discourse on Buile Shuibhne are set against the wider context of Celtic Studies scholarship, in order to draw attention to the need to critically reflect upon the operations of knowledge production in future research.

Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their Business Model to Open Access

The Internet has made possible the cost-effective dissemination of scientific journals in the form of electronic versions, usually in parallel with the printed versions. At the same time the electronic medium also makes possible totally new open access (OA) distribution models, funded by author charges, sponsorship, advertising, voluntary work, etc., where the end product is free in full text to the readers. Although more than 2,000 new OA journals have been founded in the last 15 years, the uptake of open access has been rather slow, with currently around 5% of all peer-reviewed articles published in OA journals. The slow growth can to a large extent be explained by the fact that open access has predominantly emerged via newly founded journals and startup publishers. Established journals and publishers have not had strong enough incentives to change their business models, and the commercial risks in doing so have been high. In this paper we outline and discuss two different scenarios for how scholarly publishers could change their operating model to open access. The first is based on an instantaneous change and the second on a gradual change. We propose a way to manage the gradual change by bundling traditional “big deal” licenses and author charges for opening access to individual articles.

Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their Business Model to Open Access

The Internet has made possible the cost-effective dissemination of scientific journals in the form of electronic versions, usually in parallel with the printed versions. At the same time the electronic medium also makes possible totally new open access (OA) distribution models, funded by author charges, sponsorship, advertising, voluntary work, etc., where the end product is free in full text to the readers. Although more than 2,000 new OA journals have been founded in the last 15 years, the uptake of open access has been rather slow, with currently around 5% of all peer-reviewed articles published in OA journals. The slow growth can to a large extent be explained by the fact that open access has predominantly emerged via newly founded journals and startup publishers. Established journals and publishers have not had strong enough incentives to change their business models, and the commercial risks in doing so have been high. In this paper we outline and discuss two different scenarios for how scholarly publishers could change their operating model to open access. The first is based on an instantaneous change and the second on a gradual change. We propose a way to manage the gradual change by bundling traditional “big deal” licenses and author charges for opening access to individual articles.

Complying with the NIH Public Access Policy - Copyright Considerations and Options

On January 11, 2008, the National Institutes of Health ('NIH') adopted a revised Public Access Policy for peer-reviewed journal articles reporting research supported in whole or in part by NIH funds. Under the revised policy, the grantee shall ensure that a copy of the author's final manuscript, including any revisions made during the peer review process, be electronically submitted to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central ('PMC') archive and that the person submitting the manuscript will designate a time not later than 12 months after publication at which NIH may make the full text of the manuscript publicly accessible in PMC. NIH adopted this policy to implement a new statutory requirement under which: The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law. This White Paper is written primarily for policymaking staff in universities and other institutional recipients of NIH support responsible for ensuring compliance with the Public Access Policy. The January 11, 2008, Public Access Policy imposes two new compliance mandates. First, the grantee must ensure proper manuscript submission. The version of the article to be submitted is the final version over which the author has control, which must include all revisions made after peer review. The statutory command directs that the manuscript be submitted to PMC 'upon acceptance for publication.' That is, the author's final manuscript should be submitted to PMC at the same time that it is sent to the publisher for final formatting and copy editing. Proper submission is a two-stage process. The electronic manuscript must first be submitted through a process that requires input of additional information concerning the article, the author(s), and the nature of NIH support for the research reported. NIH then formats the manuscript into a uniform, XML-based format used for PMC versions of articles. In the second stage of the submission process, NIH sends a notice to the Principal Investigator requesting that the PMC-formatted version be reviewed and approved. Only after such approval has grantee's manuscript submission obligation been satisfied. Second, the grantee also has a distinct obligation to grant NIH copyright permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible through PMC not later than 12 months after the date of publication. This obligation is connected to manuscript submission because the author, or the person submitting the manuscript on the author's behalf, must have the necessary rights under copyright at the time of submission to give NIH the copyright permission it requires. This White Paper explains and analyzes only the scope of the grantee's copyright-related obligations under the revised Public Access Policy and suggests six options for compliance with that aspect of the grantee's obligation. Time is of the essence for NIH grantees. As a practical matter, the grantee should have a compliance process in place no later than April 7, 2008. More specifically, the new Public Access Policy applies to any article accepted for publication on or after April 7, 2008 if the article arose under (1) an NIH Grant or Cooperative Agreement active in Fiscal Year 2008, (2) direct funding from an NIH Contract signed after April 7, 2008, (3) direct funding from the NIH Intramural Program, or (4) from an NIH employee. In addition, effective May 25, 2008, anyone submitting an application, proposal or progress report to the NIH must include the PMC reference number when citing articles arising from their NIH funded research. (This includes applications submitted to the NIH for the May 25, 2008 and subsequent due dates.) Conceptually, the compliance challenge that the Public Access Policy poses for grantees is easily described. The grantee must depend to some extent upon the author(s) to take the necessary actions to ensure that the grantee is in compliance with the Public Access Policy because the electronic manuscripts and the copyrights in those manuscripts are initially under the control of the author(s). As a result, any compliance option will require an explicit understanding between the author(s) and the grantee about how the manuscript and the copyright in the manuscript are managed. It is useful to conceptually keep separate the grantee's manuscript submission obligation from its copyright permission obligation because the compliance personnel concerned with manuscript management may differ from those responsible for overseeing the author's copyright management. With respect to copyright management, the grantee has the following six options: (1) rely on authors to manage copyright but also to request or to require that these authors take responsibility for amending publication agreements that call for transfer of too many rights to enable the author to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible ('the Public Access License'); (2) take a more active role in assisting authors in negotiating the scope of any copyright transfer to a publisher by (a) providing advice to authors concerning their negotiations or (b) by acting as the author's agent in such negotiations; (3) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License; (4) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License and also grants a license to the grantee to make certain uses of the article, including posting a copy in the grantee's publicly accessible digital archive or repository and authorizing the article to be used in connection with teaching by university faculty; (5) negotiate a more systematic and comprehensive agreement with the biomedical publishers to ensure either that the publisher has a binding obligation to submit the manuscript and to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible or that the author retains sufficient rights to do so; or (6) instruct NIH-funded authors to submit manuscripts only to journals with binding deposit agreements with NIH or to journals whose copyright agreements permit authors to retain sufficient rights to authorize NIH to make manuscripts publicly accessible.

Tambalacoque. For a formal account of the gist of a scholarly argument

Argumentation as reflected in a short communication from the published literature of botany and zoology is discussed. Trying to capture the logic structure of the argument, however imperfectly, is relevant to information science and depends on a particular goal: namely, to potentially benefit the task of sketching the relationship between bibliographic entries in a better manner than is possible with present-day bibliometric or scientometric practice. This imposes tight limits on the depth of analysis of the text.

Homer and the New Testament as "Multitexts" in the Digital Age ?

The field of classical studies has undergone a radical transformation with the arrival of the digital age, particularly with regard to the editing of ancient texts. As Umberto Eco (2003) pointed out, the digital age may mean the end of the history of variants and of the notion of the "original text." Among the texts of antiquity, the editing of Homer and of the New Testament are more especially susceptible to the effects of digital technology because of their numerous manuscripts. Whereas the "Homer Multitext" project recognizes that the notion of a synthetic critical edition is now seriously brought into question, the prototype of the online Greek New Testament continues to be based on the aim of obtaining a unique text, in the style of a printed critical edition. As it moves from a printed culture to the digital age, the editing of the Greek NT is also confronted by the emergence of non-Western scholarship. For example, the presence is to be noted of Arabic Muslim websites that examine Greek New Testament manuscripts but without directly interacting with Western scholarship.

Parallel editing, multi-positionality and maximalism: cosmopolitan effects as explored in some art works by Melanie Jackson and Vivienne Dick

Garfield produces a critique of neo-minimalist art practice by demonstrating how the artist Melanie Jackson’s Some things you are not allowed to send around the world (2003 and 2006) and the experimental film-maker Vivienne Dick’s Liberty’s booty (1980) – neither of which can be said to be about feeling ‘at home’ in the world, be it as a resident or as a nomad – examine global humanity through multi-positionality, excess and contingency, and thereby begin to articulate a new cosmopolitan relationship with the local – or, rather, with many different localities – in one and the same maximalist sweep of the work. ‘Maximalism’ in Garfield’s coinage signifies an excessive overloading (through editing, collage, and the sheer density of the range of the material) that enables the viewer to insert themselves into the narrative of the work. In the art of both Jackson and Dick Garfield detects a refusal to know or to judge the world; instead, there is an attempt to incorporate the complexities of its full range into the singular vision of the work, challenging the viewer to identify what is at stake.

Undergraduate Scholarship in the College of Arts and Sciences Book of Abstracts 2009 Book of Abstracts

The College of Arts and Sciences proudly presents the seventh Book of Abstracts, highlighting the undergraduate scholarship conducted by students in collaboration with faculty mentors. This collection of abstracts represents many hours of scholarly activity in which students further developed their research, critical thinking, and writing skills and engaged in learning well beyond the classroom. We congratulate the students and their faculty mentors for the quality of their work and their willingness to share it with the academic community through publications in refereed journals and presentations at regional, national, and international meetings. We also thank Evan Adams for editing the abstracts and Chris Richter, a visual communication design major, for designing the cover and producing the book.

Undergraduate Scholarship in the College of Arts and Sciences 2005 Book of Abstracts

The College of Arts and Sciences proudly presents Undergraduate Scholarship in the College of Arts and Sciences, the third issue in our annual book of abstracts, containing the work conducted by students in collaboration with faculty mentors. As you will see by the depth and variety of the projects, these students successfully used their research, critical thinking, and writing skills to produce scholarship that has been recognized by the larger scholarly community. In fact, these collected works illustrate the students’ ability to communicate at a professional level; in many cases, these students have presented and defended their scholarship to the greater academic community at regional, national, and international meetings. We congratulate all the students and faculty mentors who are represented in this collection for their dedication to learning. This book is also the first designed and edited by Winthrop University undergraduate students. For their good work, we thank Kristen Jeffords for editing the abstracts, Paul Jones for creating the cover art, and Stephanie Sheldon for the book design and layout.

Semantic Publishing: issues, solutions and new trends in scholarly publishing within the Semantic Web era

This work is concerned with the increasing relationships between two distinct multidisciplinary research fields, Semantic Web technologies and scholarly publishing, that in this context converge into one precise research topic: Semantic Publishing. In the spirit of the original aim of Semantic Publishing, i.e. the improvement of scientific communication by means of semantic technologies, this thesis proposes theories, formalisms and applications for opening up semantic publishing to an effective interaction between scholarly documents (e.g., journal articles) and their related semantic and formal descriptions. In fact, the main aim of this work is to increase the users' comprehension of documents and to allow document enrichment, discovery and linkage to document-related resources and contexts, such as other articles and raw scientific data. In order to achieve these goals, this thesis investigates and proposes solutions for three of the main issues that semantic publishing promises to address, namely: the need of tools for linking document text to a formal representation of its meaning, the lack of complete metadata schemas for describing documents according to the publishing vocabulary, and absence of effective user interfaces for easily acting on semantic publishing models and theories.