New media pathways : navigating the links between home, school and the workplace

The terms ‘literacy’ and ‘technology’ remain highly contentious within the field of education. What is meant by ‘literacy’ and the methods used to measure it vary quite markedly in educational and historical contexts across the world. Similarly, while there is a shared concern to research the potential impact of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) on patterns of teaching and learning, there are major discrepancies about which aspects and uses of these technologies should be incorporated into formal learning environments and how this can be accomplished. While government policy makers tend to regard ICTs in relation to ideas of ‘smartness’, efficiency, and the ‘knowledge’ (or ‘new’) economy, educators and educational researchers promote them as offering new tools for learning and critical thinking and the development of new literacies and socio-cultural identities. This clearly has ramifications for the ways literacy is taught and conceptualised throughout the years of schooling, K-12. Outside school, meanwhile, students engage with ICTs on another level entirely, as tools for the maintenance of social networks, for leisure, and for learning and participating in the cultures of their peers. Whatever the differences in perspective, it remains the case that a society’s dominant understandings about literacy and technology will have significant implications for the development of school curriculum.

Crown copyright

Copyright protects much of the creative, cultural, educational, scientific and informational material generated by federal, State/Territory and local governments and their constituent departments and agencies. Governments at all levels develop, manage and distribute a vast array of materials in the form of documents, reports, websites, datasets and databases on CD or DVD and files that can be downloaded from a website. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), with few exceptions government copyright is treated the same as copyright owned by non-government parties insofar as the range of protected materials and the exclusive proprietary rights attaching to them are concerned. However, the rationale for recognizing copyright in public sector materials and vesting ownership of copyright in governments is fundamentally different to the main rationales underpinning copyright generally. The central justification for recognizing Crown copyright is to ensure that government documents and materials created for public administrative purposes are disseminated in an accurate and reliable form. Consequently, the exclusive rights held by governments as copyright owners must be exercised in a manner consistent with the rationale for conferring copyright ownership on them. Since Crown copyright exists primarily to ensure that documents and materials produced for use in the conduct of government are circulated in an accurate and reliable form, governments should exercise their exclusive rights to ensure that their copyright materials are made available for access and reuse, in accordance with any laws and policies relating to access to public sector materials. While copyright law vests copyright owners with extensive bundles of exclusive rights which can be exercised to prevent others making use of the copyright material, in the case of Crown copyright materials these rights should rarely be asserted by government to deviate from the general rule that Crown copyright materials will be available for “full and free reproduction” by the community at large.

Copyright future copyright freedom

If copyright law does not liberate us from restrictions on the dissemination of knowledge, if it does not encourage expressive freedom, what is its purpose? This volume offers the thinking and suggestions of some of the finest minds grappling with the future of copyright regulation. The Copyright Future Copyright Freedom conference held in 2009 at Old Parliament House Canberra brought together Lawrence Lessig, Julie Cohen, Leslie Zines, Adrian Sterling, Sam Ricketson, Graham Greenleaf, Anne Fitzgerald, Susy Frankel, John Gilchrist, Michael Kirby and others to share the rich fruits of their experience and analysis. Zines, Sterling and Gilchrist outline their roles in the genesis and early growth of Australian copyright legislation, enriching the knowledge of anyone asking urgent questions about the future of information regulation.

'Which is the best Doctor Who story?' : a case study in value judgements outside the academy'

One of Cultural Studies' most important contributions to academic thinking about culture is the acceptance as axiomatic that we must not simply accept traditional value hierarchies in relation to cultural objects (see, for example, McGuigan, 1992: 157; Brunsdon, 1997: 5; Wark, 2001). Since Richard Hoggart and Raymond Williams took popular culture as a worthy object of study, Cultural Studies practitioners have accepted that the terms in which cultural debate had previously been conducted involved a category error. Opera is not 'better' than pop music, we believe in Cultural Studies - 'better for what?', we would ask. Similarly, Shakespeare is not 'better' than Mills and Boon, unless you can specify the purpose for which you want to use the texts. Shakespeare is indeed better than Mills and Boon for understanding seventeenth century ideas about social organisation; but Mills and Boon is unquestionably better than Shakespeare if you want slightly scandalous, but ultimately reassuring representations of sexual intercourse. The reason that we do not accept traditional hierarchies of cultural value is that we know that the culture that is commonly understood to be 'best' also happens to be that which is preferred by the most educated and most materially well-off people in any given culture (Bourdieu, 1984: 1- 2; Ross, 1989: 211). We can interpret this information in at least two ways. On the one hand, it can be read as proving that the poorer and less well-educated members of a society do indeed have tastes which are innately less worthwhile than those of the material and educational elite. On the other hand, this information can be interpreted as demonstrating that the cultural and material elite publicly represent their own tastes as being the only correct ones. In Cultural Studies, we tend to favour the latter interpretation. We reject the idea that cultural objects have innate value, in terms of beauty, truth, excellence, simply 'there' in the object. That is, we reject 'aesthetic' approaches to culture (Bourdieu, 1984: 6; 485; Hartley, 1994: 6)1. In this, Cultural Studies is similar to other postmodern institutions, where high and popular culture can be mixed in ways unfamiliar to modernist culture (Sim, 1992: 1; Jameson, 1998: 100). So far, so familiar.

The impact of location on contribution schedule lot entitlements

Should the owner of a penthouse unit pay more in body corporate levies than the ground floor unit owner? A decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal (McPherson JA, Chesterman and Atkinson JJ) will be of great interest to those seeking to challenge contribution schedule lot entitlements imposed under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (‘the Act’). The decision is Fischer v Body Corporate for Centrepoint Community Title Scheme 7779 [2004] QCA 214.

The Maori social science academy and evidence-based policy

This paper focuses on recent moves to forge stronger linkages between the Māori social science academy and the policy industry. A critical appraisal of this development is offered, with particular attention given to the desirability of enhancing the academy’s role in the policy process, given the policy industry’s continued privileging of Eurocentric theory and research methodologies within the developing evidence-based environment. The paper ends with a discussion of the possibilities and problems associated with engagement with the policy industry, particularly as these relate to the various roles members can (or are forced to) take; either as ‘insiders’ (such as policy workers and contract researchers), or independent, critical ‘outsiders’. The author concludes that the best that insiders can hope for are incremental, largely ineffective changes to Māori policy, while independent members of the academy are best placed to speak on behalf of Māori, Māori communities, hapu and iwi.