Purpose This paper aims to explore definitions and notions of what a community archive is, and the tensions between different understandings of community archives. Design/methodology/approach The paper is a critical analysis of community archives definitions and understanding from researchers and practitioners across the wider heritage information sector. Findings Community archives are a growing area of interest for researchers because of the archives’ intrinsic link to the community and their provision of the evidence of it. While discussion often focuses on a paradigm of transformative purpose, existing definitions around community archives continue to be tenuous, reflecting different real or perceived types and practices and the perspective of the author and the sector they work within. Variations in definition can also occur because of differences in perspective around theory and practice, with many practitioner-based definitions intrinsically bound with the community they represent. This can result in community archives being defined as “alternative” based on mainstream practice or “political” based on theoretical purview, or “meeting the needs of community” by the community archivists themselves. Research limitations/implications The paper is conceptual and does not attempt to provide one definition that covers the perceived extent of community archives. It is part of work in progress on the nature of community archives and the impact such discourse may have on archival theory and practice. Originality/value This paper provides an overview of some of the key issues and themes impacting a definition of community archives, and in doing so works towards a broader understanding the nature of community archives. In most cases, the concept of “community” seems to provide a common definitive element and practitioner definitions focus on addressing the needs of self-defined community to a greater or lesser extent.
The presented study investigated the extent to which engaging in a therapeutic sporting programme in males with severe autism spectrum disorder (ASD) improves the debilitating behaviours commonly associated with ASD. Furthermore, the views of parents of the autistic participants were assessed concerning the effectiveness of the programme. Participants were eight 13- to 20-year-old males born in the United Kingdom from a school and sports college for pupils with severe learning difficulties. The selection was using volunteer sampling from the “Monday Club” initiative, run by Saracens Sports Foundation in partnership with a local school and specialist sports college. The Gilliam Autism Rating Scale, 3rd edition was administered to identify and measure the severity of ASD behaviours at four time periods namely: at programme entry as the baseline (Time 1, T1), a second time after 8 weeks (Time 2, T2), a third time after 16 weeks (Time 3, T3), and a fourth time post programme (Time 4, T4). The results showed that for the more severe cases of ASD (Autism Index >101) there was no positive change in subscale performance from T1 to T2. For milder cases (Autism Index, 71–100) there were subtle non-significant improvements on the subscale scores from T1 to T2. Of the 6 subscales at T2, emotional responses, cognitive style, and maladaptive speech approached significance at the P=0.05 level. At T3 and T4, there was also no statistically significant improvement in ASD behaviours compared to the baseline for either condition. Finally parents’ were “very satisfied” with their child’s participation in the physical activity programme.
Interestingly, the intervention group showed more pro-criminal attitudes on their responses compared to the no intervention group. Finally, analysis of the 3 cycles of data collected showed that the time of the year the questionnaire was completed has a significant impact on the responses given. In contrast, the qualitative interviews showed a very positive change of attitude towards rehabilitation from the intervention group after rugby training. The implications of the results in relation to studies aimed at evaluation of the intervention programs in YOI are discussed.
Purpose In response to the special issue call for papers on international sources for advertising and marketing history, this paper aims to provide information, this paper provides information on two prominent New Zealand archives: Archives New Zealand and the Alexander Turnbull Library (ATL). Design/methodology/approach Archives New Zealand and the ATL were chosen as they are the two largest archives in New Zealand, and both have different but complementary roles – one for the preservation of government records and the other for the preservation of private collections. The history of each is provided as well as a discussion of relevant materials for marketing historians. This is followed by a discussion of the limitations of the archives with regards to their colonial contexts and potential for ignoring the “other” over the years. Findings Archives New Zealand houses official government documents and thus occupational registrations, licences, trademarks, patents and copyright records are held, along with unique product design registration files and the complete history of health promotion in New Zealand. The ATL houses personal and thus biographically useful photographs, society records and minutes, personal letters and diaries, photos and glass plate negatives, portraits and paintings, architectural works and music. Originality/value For researchers pursuing historical research in marketing, the archival documents offered by government archives and donated private collections from throughout the world provide invaluable resources. This paper also provides a discussion of the colonial focus on record-keeping and potential bias stemming from colonial structures of government and lack of representation of marginalised groups.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.