Search results

New economies based on emerging technologies for shared mobility and autonomous vehicles will shape future urban transport systems, but their potential impacts are uncertain. Internationally, government agencies face difficult challenges to effectively plan and regulate the deployment of these technologies for the common good, whilst simultaneously encouraging innovation. Being both a facilitator and an umpire is not an easy task. This chapter draws on a series of interviews with public and private-sector actors in urban transport in Australia. Unsurprisingly, all private-sector respondents had significant concerns for the sustainability of their business in the emerging mobility markets, but it was generally acknowledged that without government support and partnership, a lack of structure and clarity could lead to natural monopolies with negative consequences for competition and the public good. Strong and clear government regulation is seen to be necessary to allow the sector to reach its maximum potential and have positive ramifications for both the public and the private good – outcome not always seen as compatible. Public-sector interviewees generally recognised that much of the necessary innovation was being shaped by the market, and that there had been a considerable loss of skills over decades from the state because of neo-liberal policies. So, some doubted the ability of the state to shape developments using currently available planning and public policy methods and feared that it would be difficult to regulate emergent markets to prevent monopolies emerging. On the other hand, some argued that many firms are looking to government for frameworks in which businesses can operate successfully by setting conditions in which risks could be managed. This chapter discusses these issues, seeking to guide research agendas and to foster further debate. The evidence gained from these in-depth interviews helps focus attention on which forms of regulation might be required by industry. It also raises questions about the capacity of government agencies to effectively manage these complex transitions.

In Australia, corporations are playing an increasing role in the shaping of urban regions through their ability to mobilize capital to support large infrastructure projects and to usurp institutional planning roles which have traditionally been the responsibility of public-sector agencies. The chapter outlines emerging evidence of changes in the roles of corporations in generating ideas and mobilizing political support for their favoured city-shaping projects, and shows that the private sector is embedded in the processes of government, such as planning, in increasingly complex ways. Through ‘market-led’ or ‘unsolicited’ proposal evaluation frameworks, corporations can now bring proposals to political leaders in ways which go outside traditional planning processes and bypass conventional engagement with civil society.

In this context, we present data from a recent survey of planners in state and national land-use and transport agencies. The survey, conducted through semi-structured interviews, gathered information about the expectations of these organizations in relation to the nature and timing of the deployment of new AV technologies; about the potential implications for achieving environmental and social planning objectives; and about the collective infrastructure investments that AV technologies may require. This work is being used to shape a new research agenda to explore the planning and regulatory frameworks that are needed to ensure that the AV technologies can be deployed in ways that maximize the public good.

Despite the massive social benefits that the car has brought, it has become evident that the current mobility system is undermining the benefits it creates with substantial air quality problems, inactive lifestyles, deaths and injuries from accidents and major contributions to the global climate change challenge. The introduction of smart mobility innovations, in promising to challenge the existing regime of automobility may be a major policy opportunity, and also provide a source of new economic opportunity. However, it is far from clear that these opportunities will be recognized or, even where they are, realized due to the complexities of steering any transition in the mobility system.

This book sets out how we should understand the challenge of governing the smart mobility transition and, in this introductory chapter we set out the key arguments and contributions of each part of the book for addressing these challenges. The first section of the book focuses on how the role of the government is challenged by the growing network of actors and the new resource interdependencies that emerge from smart mobility. How these challenges come to be recognized and resolved is itself a critical part of the governance process as explored in the second section. The third section examines the changing context of governance and the capacity of the state to act to steer the transition. This allows us to identify, in our final concluding section, a set of critical topics for those researching and implementing the smart mobility revolution.

As the world becomes a global village, sports organisations have begun to extend their markets and fan bases to different groups of customers. David Beckham, a British soccer star with a high profile marriage and much media attention, has endorsed numerous products, thereby becoming an excellent case study for the current trend of athlete endorsement in the international sports industry. The results of this case study provide insights into factors that might influence the success of athlete endorsement.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how the classic Delphi method can be adapted and structured to ensure that specific research questions are clearly addressed.

As part of a larger mixed method project, a modified Delphi study was undertaken to explore factors influencing publication and non-publication of mental health nursing research.

This paper reports brief findings from the Delphi study. However, its main focus is the methodological issues arising from the Delphi method.

The paper argues that the classic Delphi method can be adapted and structured to ensure that specific research questions are able to be clearly answered. The adaptations are pragmatic in approach and in keeping with the general principles underpinning the Delphi method, while successfully addressing the problems of attrition and previous criticism of homogenous panels.

This paper offers some practical solutions to issue arising from undertaking research using the Delphi method.

Let me begin by reassuring you that this paper is not a survey of the literature of the film. The library of the British Film Institute contains just over 10,000 books and pamphlets relating to the film, and even a hasty survey of a body of literature of that size and complexity would occupy us all night. Most of this literature, moreover, falls outside the scope of the bibliography I am compiling on which this paper is based: a bibliography of film librarianship. My subject this evening, therefore, is limited to the literature that deals in some measure with the art, the science, or, if you prefer, the discipline of film librarianship; the collection, organization, and treatment of films in libraries. That there is such a discipline is, I think, warranted by the existence of this group, and if there are still some unbelievers in that great grey sea of librarianship beyond Aslib, I trust the Cataloguing Code that has been so methodically (I almost said painfully) formulated at the fortnightly sessions of your Cataloguing Committee will be fully recognized as the birth certificate of a new and vital branch of the ‘penurious science’.

This study aims to focus on how librarians use and promote Google Scholar (GS) within their library instruction sessions. This study also examines how Google Scholar and the Google Scholar discovery layer, library links, is promoted on library websites. This information is then analyzed across the three date ranges.

This study provides a longitudinal analysis of the opinions and uses of Google Scholar by the Ohio consortium of libraries, OhioLINK. This study uses survey data that was collected in 2007, 2014 and 2019 via the OhioLINK Listserv and builds off of co-author’s previous study (2008), which examined the attitudes of OhioLINK librarians as it related to Google Scholar.

The results of this research suggested that there were significant changes in use and opinions of Google Scholar between 2007 and 2014 with more normalization of uses and opinions occurring between 2014 and 2019.

Respondents were not asked for the type of library where they work or to identify their position within their libraries, which necessarily limits the conclusions that can be drawn from the survey responses. In retrospect, limiting the sample to instruction librarians or faculty librarians might have yielded more meaningful results. Additionally, this project did not evaluate the uses and opinions of librarians using GS at the reference desk. By providing this information, it would be easier to truly glean the uses and opinions of librarians with regard to GS.

This research will assist librarians contextualize how one of the most popular research resources has been used and promoted by those within the field and how those opinions have changed over time. This study will provide context into how Google Scholar became one of the most popular research tools and how attitudes of this unprecedented, and controversial, resource came to be accepted by librarians over the past 15 years.

This study will help librarians better contextualize how other librarians use and promote Google Scholar. Furthermore, it demonstrates how a controversial information research tool became accepted by those in the field over time.

According to the authors’ knowledge, this research is the only study to provide a longitudinal analysis of the librarian opinions of Google Scholar. It targeted the same audience in identical surveys in a way no other Google Scholar research has done. It builds off of the co-author’s (2008) work, which is a well-cited study regarding librarian attitudes of Google Scholar. This research was done on the 15th year anniversary of Google Scholar.