Academic literature on the topic 'Newspapers Australia Abstracting and indexing'

Describes the indexing and abstracting of three 19th-century newspapers of Perth, Scotland, including problems of organizing volunteers, dealing with local history material, and selection policy for headings.

The author discusses whether traditional fee-based abstracting and indexing (A&I) services in the fields of physical sciences and engineering is nearing its demise. She notes that fee-based A&I services are facing challenges amid the closure of corporate libraries and cuts in the budget of academic libraries. Factors affecting the future of the A&I services industry are change in perception towards the service and the switch to digital full text. In the author's opinion, the industry will follow the example of newspapers into a downward spiral.

Honorary Editor Steven Ross, Johns Hopkins University, USA Editor-in-Chief Fezile Ozdamli, Near East University, Cyprus Editorial Board Hafize Keser, Ankara University, Turkey Jesus Garcia Laborda, Universidad de Alcala, Spain Huseyin Uzunboylu, Near East University, Cyprus Selma Koc, Cleveland State University, USA Huseyin Bicen, University of Kyrenia, Cyprus Owner and Publisher SciencePark Science Organization and Counseling LTD.Publisher Contact SciencePark Science, Organization and Counseling LTD.13 Subat Street, No: 17, 99030 Kyrenia – CyprusE-mail: info@sproc.org Tel: +90 5338366993 Fax: +90 3928157195 www.sproc.orgEditorial Contact Fezile OzdamliNear East University,Faculty of Education Chairperson of Department ofEducational Technology Nicosia, Cypruswjet.editor@gmail.comTel. +90 392 6802000 - 111 Sponsor World Journal on Educational Technology is an academic journal which is sponsored by Near East University and Cyprus Educational Sciences Association. Frequency 3 issues (April 30, August 31 and December 31) per year. Technical Staff Meltem Haksiz Vasfi Tugun Basak Baglama Proofreading Academic Proofreading www.academicproofreading.com Cover Design Hasan Ozdal Azmiye Yinal Abstracting/Indexing Academic Keys, DOAJ, PsycINFO, EBSCO, Ulrich's Educational Research Abstracts (ERA), Asian Education Index, Turkish Education Index, Georgetown University Library, Google Scholar, AWER Index and InfoBase Index Publishing Language All Manuscripts must be in English language. Issue Publishing Date April 2015 International Advisory Board Abdullah Kuzu, Anadolu University, Turkey Adem Karahoca, Bahcesehir University, Turkey Antonella Carbonaro, University of Bologna, Italy Birikim Ozgur, Near East University, Cyprus Christine Harmes, James Madison University, USA Eralp Altun, Ege University, Turkey Ferhan Odabaşı, Anadolu University, Turkey Gulsun Kurubacak, Anadolu University, Turkey Hafize Keser, Ankara University, Turkey Halil İbrahim Yalın, EMU, Cyprus Huseyin Uzunboylu, Near East University, Cyprus Mehmet Ali Öztürk, Bahcesehir University, Turkey Murat Tezer, Near East University, Cyprus Nadire Cavus, Near East University, Cyprus Özge Hacıfazlıoğlu, Istanbul Kultur University, Turkey Ray Webster, Murdoch University, Australia Saniye Tugba Bulu, Middle East Technical University, Turkey Servet Bayram, Marmara University, Turkey Sharifah Norhaidah S. Idros, UniversitiSains Malaysia, Malaysia Sonia María Suárez‐Garaboa, University of A Coruña, Spain Steven M. Ross, Johns Hopkins University, USA Thirusellvan Vandeyar, University of Pretoria, South Africa Tom Baranowski, Baylor College of Medicine, USA Tse‐Kian Neo, Multimedia University, Malaysia Yavuz Akpınar, Bogaziçi University, Turkey Yolanda Sealey‐Ruiz, Columbia University, United States Yu‐chu Yeh, National Chengchi University, Taiwan Yu‐Mei Wang, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA Zehra Ozcinar, Ataturk Teacher Academy, Cyprus Note: All members of international advisory board articles' indexed in SSCI. Important Information During review process we use iThenticate plagiarism software. So, it is recommended to the authors should scan with iThenticate plagiarism or other free plagiarism software of their manuscripts. ©2015 SciencePark Science Organization and Counseling LTD. All rights reserved. The ideas published in the journal belong to the authors. Important Announcement We would like to announce that World Journal on Educational Technology will only be published online from 1 September 2015. There will not be a printed version (ISSN: 1309-1506) of the journal.

Honorary Editor Steven Ross, Johns Hopkins University, USA Editor-in-Chief Fezile Ozdamli, Near East University, Cyprus Editorial Board Hafize Keser, Ankara University, Turkey Jesus Garcia Laborda, Universidad de Alcala, Spain Huseyin Uzunboylu, Near East University, Cyprus Selma Koc, Cleveland State University, USA Huseyin Bicen, University of Kyrenia, Cyprus Owner and Publisher SciencePark Science Organization and Counseling LTD.Publisher Contact SciencePark Science, Organization and Counseling LTD.13 Subat Street, No: 17, 99030 Kyrenia – CyprusE-mail: info@sproc.org Tel: +90 5338366993Fax: +90 3928157195www.sproc.orgEditorial Contact Fezile OzdamliNear East University,Faculty of Education Chairperson of Department of Educational Technology Nicosia, Cypruswjet.editor@gmail.comTel. +90 392 6802000 - 111 Sponsor World Journal on Educational Technology is an academic journal which is sponsored by Near East University and Cyprus Educational Sciences Association. Frequency 3 issues (April 30, August 31 and December 31) per year. Technical Staff Meltem Haksiz Vasfi Tugun Basak Baglama Proofreading Academic Proofreading www.academicproofreading.com Cover Design Hasan Ozdal Azmiye Yinal Abstracting/Indexing Academic Keys, DOAJ, PsycINFO, EBSCO, Ulrich's Educational Research Abstracts (ERA), Asian Education Index, Turkish Education Index, Georgetown University Library, Google Scholar, AWER Index and InfoBase Index Publishing Language All Manuscripts must be in English language. Issue Publishing Date August 2015 International Advisory Board Abdullah Kuzu, Anadolu University, Turkey Adem Karahoca, Bahcesehir University, Turkey Antonella Carbonaro, University of Bologna, Italy Birikim Ozgur, Near East University, Cyprus Christine Harmes, James Madison University, USA Eralp Altun, Ege University, Turkey Ferhan Odabaşı, Anadolu University, Turkey Gulsun Kurubacak, Anadolu University, Turkey Hafize Keser, Ankara University, Turkey Halil İbrahim Yalın, EMU, Cyprus Huseyin Uzunboylu, Near East University, Cyprus Mehmet Ali Öztürk, Bahcesehir University, Turkey Murat Tezer, Near East University, Cyprus Nadire Cavus, Near East University, Cyprus Özge Hacıfazlıoğlu, Istanbul Kultur University, Turkey Ray Webster, Murdoch University, Australia Saniye Tugba Bulu, Middle East Technical University, Turkey Servet Bayram, Marmara University, Turkey Sharifah Norhaidah S. Idros, UniversitiSains Malaysia, Malaysia Sonia María Suárez‐Garaboa, University of A Coruña, Spain Steven M. Ross, Johns Hopkins University, USA Thirusellvan Vandeyar, University of Pretoria, South Africa Tom Baranowski, Baylor College of Medicine, USA Tse‐Kian Neo, Multimedia University, Malaysia Yavuz Akpınar, Bogaziçi University, Turkey Yolanda Sealey‐Ruiz, Columbia University, United States Yu‐chu Yeh, National Chengchi University, Taiwan Yu‐Mei Wang, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA Zehra Ozcinar, Ataturk Teacher Academy, Cyprus Note: All members of international advisory board articles' indexed in SSCI. Important Information During review process we use iThenticate plagiarism software. So, it is recommended to the authors should scan with iThenticate plagiarism or other free plagiarism software of their manuscripts. ©2015 SciencePark Science Organization and Counseling LTD. All rights reserved. The ideas published in the journal belong to the authors. Important Announcement We would like to announce that World Journal on Educational Technology will only be published online from 1 September 2015. There will not be a printed version (ISSN: 1309-1506) of the journal.

<p>Editor-in-C hief Haluk Soran, Near East University, Cyprus Co-editors Serap Ozbas, Near East University, Cyprus Nazim Kasot, Near East University, Cyprus Editorial Board Engin Baysen, Near east University, Cyprus M. Necdet Alpaslan, Dokuz Eylul University, Turkey Mehmet Karamanoglu, Middlesex University, UK Murat Sonmez, Middle East Technical University Northern Cyprus Campus, Cyprus Nehir Varol, Ankara University, Turkey Serife Gunduz, Near East University, Cyprus Owner and Publisher SciencePark Science, Organization and Counseling LTD.</p><p>Publisher Contact SciencePark Science,</p><p>Organization and Counseling LTD.</p><p>13 Subat Street, No: 17, 99030 Kyrenia – Cyprus</p><p>E-mail: info@sproc.org</p><p>Tel: +90 5338366993 Fax: +90 3928157195 www.sproc.org</p><p>Editorial Contact Serap Ozbas</p><p>Near East University</p><p>Department of Science Education Nicosia, Cyprus</p><p>E-mail: wjer.editor@awer-center.org</p><p>Tel: +90 392 6802000 – 110</p><p>Sponsor World Journal of Environmental Research is an academic journal which is sponsored by Near East University and University of Kyrenia. Frequency Bi-annual Technical Staff Meltem Haksiz Vasfi Tugun Proofreading Academic Proofreading www.academicproofreading.com Cover Design Hasan Ozdal Azmiye Yinal Publishing Language All Manuscripts must be in English language. Abstracting/Indexing Google Scholar and AWER Index Issue Publishing Date May 2015 DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.18844/wjer.v5i2 International Advisory Board A. M. Abd El-Aty, University of Cairo, Egypt Afet Arkut, Cyprus International University, North Cyprus Aşkın Kiraz, Near East University, North Cyprus Bekbolet Miray, Bogazici University, Turkey Belgiorno Vincezo, University of Salerno, Italy Christian Onof, Imperial College London, UK Christos Zerefos, University of Athens, Greece Cardana Rincon, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia C. Jr. Ballesteros Florencio, University of the Philippines Diliman, Philippines Deniz Dolgen, Dokuz Eylul University, Turkey Dimitris Komilis, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Ergun Gide, CQUniversity Sydney, Australia Gerasimos Lyberatos, National Technical University of Athens, Greece Guillermo San Miguel, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain Henny van Lanen, Wageningen University, Netherlands Howard. S. Wheater, University of Saskatchewan, Canada İlkay Salihoğlu, University of Kyrenia, North Cyprus Jia Qian Jiang, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Jesus Garcia Lobardo, Universidad de Alcala, Spain Li Fengting, Tongji University, China Mikdat Kadıoglu, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey Nikos Thomaidis, University of Athens, Greece Nehir Varol, Ankara University, North Cyprus Steven M Ross,, Johns Hopkins University, USA Sven Wagner, Sails for Science Foundation, Germany Serife Gündüz, Near East University, North Cyprus Thorsten Wagener, University of Bristol, UK T. Hıguchi, Yamaguchi University, Japan Note: All members of international advisory board articles' indexed in SSCI. Important Information During review process we use iThenticate plagiarism software. So, it is recommended to the authors should scan with iThenticate plagiarism or other free plagiarism software of their manuscripts. © 2015 SciencePark Science, Organization and Counseling LTD. All rights reserved. The ideas published in the journal belong to the authors.</p>

<p>Editor-in-C hief Haluk Soran, Near East University, Cyprus Co-editors Serap Ozbas, Near East University, Cyprus Nazim Kasot, Near East University, Cyprus Editorial Board Engin Baysen, Near east University, Cyprus M. Necdet Alpaslan, Dokuz Eylul University, Turkey Mehmet Karamanoglu, Middlesex University, UK Murat Sonmez, Middle East Technical University Northern Cyprus Campus, Cyprus Nehir Varol, Ankara University, Turkey Serife Gunduz, Near East University, Cyprus Owner and Publisher SciencePark Science, Organization and Counseling LTD.</p><p>Publisher Contact SciencePark Science, Organization and Counseling LTD.</p><p>13 Subat Street, No: 17, 99030 Kyrenia – Cyprus</p><p>E-mail: info@sproc.org</p><p>Tel: +90 5338366993 Fax: +90 3928157195 www.sproc.org</p><p>Editorial Contact Serap Ozbas</p><p>Near East University Department of Science Education Nicosia, Cyprus </p><p>E-mail: wjer.editor@awer-center.org</p><p>Tel: +90 392 6802000 – 11 Sponsor World Journal of Environmental Research is an academic journal which is sponsored by Near East University and University of Kyrenia. Frequency Bi-annual Technical Staff Meltem Haksiz Vasfi Tugun Proofreading Academic Proofreading www.academicproofreading.com Cover Design Hasan Ozdal Azmiye Yinal Publishing Language All Manuscripts must be in English language. Abstracting/Indexing Google Scholar and AWER Index Issue Publishing Date December 2015 DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.18844/wjer.v5i2 International Advisory Board A. M. Abd El-Aty, University of Cairo, Egypt Afet Arkut, Cyprus International University, North Cyprus Aşkın Kiraz, Near East University, North Cyprus Bekbolet Miray, Bogazici University, Turkey Belgiorno Vincezo, University of Salerno, Italy Christian Onof, Imperial College London, UK Christos Zerefos, University of Athens, Greece Cardana Rincon, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia C. Jr. Ballesteros Florencio, University of the Philippines Diliman, Philippines Deniz Dolgen, Dokuz Eylul University, Turkey Dimitris Komilis, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Ergun Gide, CQUniversity Sydney, Australia Gerasimos Lyberatos, National Technical University of Athens, Greece Guillermo San Miguel, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain Henny van Lanen, Wageningen University, Netherlands Howard. S. Wheater, University of Saskatchewan, Canada İlkay Salihoğlu, University of Kyrenia, North Cyprus Jia Qian Jiang, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Jesus Garcia Lobardo, Universidad de Alcala, Spain Li Fengting, Tongji University, China Mikdat Kadıoglu, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey Nikos Thomaidis, University of Athens, Greece Nehir Varol, Ankara University, North Cyprus Steven M Ross,, Johns Hopkins University, USA Sven Wagner, Sails for Science Foundation, Germany Serife Gündüz, Near East University, North Cyprus Thorsten Wagener, University of Bristol, UK T. Hıguchi, Yamaguchi University, Japan </p><p>Note: All members of international advisory board articles' indexed in SSCI. <br />Important Information During review process we use iThenticate plagiarism software. So, it is recommended to the authors should scan with iThenticate plagiarism or other free plagiarism software of their manuscripts. <br />© 2015 SciencePark Science, Organization and Counseling LTD. All rights reserved. The ideas published in the journal belong to the authors.</p>

<p>Editor-in-Chief Huseyin Uzunboylu, Near East University, Cyprus huseyin.uzunboylu@neu.edu.tr Tel: +9 0392 6802000 - 110 Executive Editor Cigdem Hursen, Near East University, Cyprus cigdem.hursen@neu.edu.tr Tel: +9 0392 6802000 - 111 Editorial Board Ahmet Güneyli, Near East University, Cyprus Alevriadou Anastasia, University of Western Macedonia, Greece Canan Zeki, Eastern Mediterranean University, Cyprus Gokmen Daglı, Near East University, Cyprus Jesus Garcia Laborda, University of Alcala, Spain Milan Matijevic, University of Zagreb, Croatia Nerguz Bulut Serin, Lefke European University, Cyprus Özge Hacıfazlioglu, Kultur University, Turkey Kobus Maree, Pretoria University, South Africa Owner and Publisher SciencePark Science, Organization and Counseling LTD.<br />Publisher Contact<br />SciencePark Science, Organization and Counseling LTD.<br />13 Subat Street, No: 17, 99030<br />Kyrenia – Cyprus<br />E-mail: info@sproc.org<br />Tel: +90 5338366993<br />Fax: +90 3928157195 www.sproc.org<br />Editorial Contact<br />Cigdem Hursen<br />Near East University, Faculty of Education<br />Department of Educational Sciences<br />Nicosia, Cyprus<br />editor.cjes@gmail.com<br />Tel. +90 392 6802000 - 111 Sponsor Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences is an academic journal which is sponsored by Near East University and Cyprus Educational Sciences Association. Frequency 4 issues (March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31) per year (after May 2009). Technical Staff Meltem Haksiz Vasfi Tugun Basak Baglama Proofreading Academic Proofreading www.academicproofreading.com Cover Design Hasan Ozdal Azmiye Yinal Publishing Language All Manuscripts must be in English language. Abstracting/Indexing Academic Keys, DOAJ, PsycINFO, EBSCO, Ulrich's Educational Research Abstracts (ERA), Georgetown University Library, Asian Education Index, Turkish Education Index, Google Scholar and AWER Index Issue Publishing Date 31 December 2015 International Advisory Board Abdullahi Fido, Kuwait University, Kuwait Ahmet Guneyli, Near East University, Cyprus Aijaz Ahmed Gujjar, Federal College of Education, Pakistan Alison Sheila Taysum, University of Leicester, United Kingdom Asuncion Lopez-Varela, Universidad Complutense, MADRID, Spain Baysen, Engin, Near East University, Cyprus Boaz Shulruf, University of Auckland, New Zealand Chia-Hao Yang, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taiwan Chong Ho Yu, Arizona State University, United States Christian Guetl, Graz University of Technology, Austria Christine E. Corcoran, University of Birmingham, United States Minor Outlying Islands Christine J. Briggs, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, United States Christopher Boyle, Charles Sturt University, Australia Çiğdem Hürsen, Near East University, Cyprus Colette Gray, Stranmillis University College, Ireland Cristina Daskagiani, Greece David Wyss Rudge, Western Michigan University, United States Donald Wilson Zimmerman, Carleton University, Canada Ellina Chernobilsky, Caldwell College, United States Evridiki Zachopoulou, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Giuliana Dettori, ITD-CNR, Italy Helen Gunter, University of Manchester, United Kingdom Hüseyin Uzunboylu, Near East University, Cyprus Jafar Yaghoubi, Zanjan University, Iran, Islamic Republic Of Jere T. Humphreys, Arizona State University, United States John CK Wang, National Institute of Education, Singapore John Cowan, Edinburgh Napier University, United Kingdom Josie Maria Rodriguez Corral, University of Cádiz (Spain), Spain Kanji Akahori, Hakuoh University, Japan Madhumita Bhattacharya, Athabasca University &amp; Massey University, Canada Margaret Zeegers, University of Ballarat, Australia Marissa Silverman, Montclair State University, United States Muammer Caltik, Blacksea Techical University, Turkey Murat Tezer, Near East University, Cyprus Nadire Cavus, Near East University, Cyprus Othman Alsawaie, United Arab Emirates University, United Arab Emirates Ozge Hacifazlioglu, Bahcesehir University, Turkey Paulo Jorge Santos, Faculty of Arts, Porto University, Portugal, Portugal Sirin Karadeniz, Bahcesehir University, Turkey Note: All members of international advisory board articles' indexed in SSCI. Important Information During review process we use iThenticate plagiarism software. So, it is recommended to the authors should scan with iThenticate plagiarism or other free plagiarism software of their manuscripts. © 2015 SciencePark Science, Organization and Counseling LTD. All rights reserved. The ideas published in the journal belong to the authors. Important Announcement We would like to announce that Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences will only be published online from 1 September 2015. There will not be a printed version (ISSN: 1305-9076) of the journal.</p>

<p>Editor-in-C hief Huseyin Uzunboylu, Near East University, Cyprus huseyin.uzunboylu@neu.edu.tr Tel: +9 0392 6802000 - 110 <br />Executive Editor Cigdem Hursen, Near East University, Cyprus cigdem.hursen@neu.edu.tr Tel: +9 0392 6802000 - 111 <br />Editorial Board Ahmet Güneyli, Near East University, Cyprus Alevriadou Anastasia, University of Western Macedonia, Greece Canan Zeki, Eastern Mediterranean University, Cyprus Gokmen Daglı, Near East University, Cyprus Jesus Garcia Laborda, University of Alcala, Spain Milan Matijevic, University of Zagreb, Croatia Nerguz Bulut Serin, Lefke European University, Cyprus Özge Hacıfazlioglu, Kultur University, Turkey Kobus Maree, Pretoria University, South Africa Owner and Publisher SciencePark Science, Organization and Counseling LTD.</p><p><span>Publisher Contact</span></p><p>SciencePark Science, Organization and Counseling LTD.</p><p><span>13 Subat Street, No: 17, 99030 Kyrenia – Cyprus<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br /> E-mail: info@sproc.org</span></p><p><span>Tel: +90 5338366993 Fax: +90 3928157195</span></p><p><span>www.sproc.org</span></p><p><span>Editorial Contact</span></p><p><span>Cigdem Hursen</span></p><p><span>Near East University,</span></p><p>Faculty of Education Department of Educational Sciences Nicosia, Cyprus editor.cjes@gmail.com</p><p><span>Tel. +90 392 6802000 - 111 </span>Sponsor Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences is an academic journal which is sponsored by Near East University and Cyprus Educational Sciences Association. Frequency 4 issues (March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31) per year (after May 2009). Technical Staff Meltem Haksiz Vasfi Tugun Basak Baglama Proofreading Academic Proofreading www.academicproofreading.com Cover Design Hasan Ozdal Azmiye Yinal Publishing Language All Manuscripts must be in English language. Abstracting/Indexing Academic Keys, DOAJ, PsycINFO, EBSCO, Ulrich's Educational Research Abstracts (ERA), Georgetown University Library, Asian Education Index, Turkish Education Index, Google Scholar and AWER Index Issue Publishing Date September 2015 International Advisory Board Abdullahi Fido, Kuwait University, Kuwait Ahmet Guneyli, Near East University, Cyprus Aijaz Ahmed Gujjar, Federal College of Education, Pakistan Alison Sheila Taysum, University of Leicester, United Kingdom Asuncion Lopez-Varela, Universidad Complutense, MADRID, Spain Baysen, Engin, Near East University, Cyprus Boaz Shulruf, University of Auckland, New Zealand Chia-Hao Yang, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taiwan Chong Ho Yu, Arizona State University, United States Christian Guetl, Graz University of Technology, Austria Christine E. Corcoran, University of Birmingham, United States Minor Outlying Islands Christine J. Briggs, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, United States Christopher Boyle, Charles Sturt University, Australia Çiğdem Hürsen, Near East University, Cyprus Colette Gray, Stranmillis University College, Ireland Cristina Daskagiani, Greece David Wyss Rudge, Western Michigan University, United States Donald Wilson Zimmerman, Carleton University, Canada Ellina Chernobilsky, Caldwell College, United States Evridiki Zachopoulou, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Giuliana Dettori, ITD-CNR, Italy Helen Gunter, University of Manchester, United Kingdom Hüseyin Uzunboylu, Near East University, Cyprus Jafar Yaghoubi, Zanjan University, Iran, Islamic Republic Of Jere T. Humphreys, Arizona State University, United States John CK Wang, National Institute of Education, Singapore John Cowan, Edinburgh Napier University, United Kingdom Josie Maria Rodriguez Corral, University of Cádiz (Spain), Spain Kanji Akahori, Hakuoh University, Japan Madhumita Bhattacharya, Athabasca University &amp; Massey University, Canada Margaret Zeegers, University of Ballarat, Australia Marissa Silverman, Montclair State University, United States Muammer Caltik, Blacksea Techical University, Turkey Murat Tezer, Near East University, Cyprus Nadire Cavus, Near East University, Cyprus Othman Alsawaie, United Arab Emirates University, United Arab Emirates Ozge Hacifazlioglu, Bahcesehir University, Turkey Paulo Jorge Santos, Faculty of Arts, Porto University, Portugal Sirin Karadeniz, Bahcesehir University, Turkey Note: All members of international advisory board articles' indexed in SSCI. Important Information During review process we use iThenticate plagiarism software. So, it is recommended to the authors should scan with iThenticate plagiarism or other free plagiarism software of their manuscripts. © 2015 SciencePark Science, Organization and Counseling LTD. All rights reserved. The ideas published in the journal belong to the authors. Important Announcement We would like to announce that Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences will only be published online from 1 September 2015. There will not be a printed version (ISSN: 1305-9076) of the journal.</p><p><br /><br /></p><p><span><br /></span></p><p> </p>

At one point in Victor Hugo’s novel, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, the archdeacon, Claude Frollo, looked up from a book on his table to the edifice of the gothic cathedral, visible from his canon’s cell in the cloister of Notre Dame: “Alas!” he said, “this will kill that” (146). Frollo’s lament, that the book would destroy the edifice, captures the medieval cleric’s anxiety about the way in which Gutenberg’s print technology would become the new universal means for recording and communicating humanity’s ideas and artistic expression, replacing the grand monuments of architecture, human engineering, and craftsmanship. For Hugo, architecture was “the great handwriting of humankind” (149). The cathedral as the material outcome of human technology was being replaced by the first great machine—the printing press. At this point in the third millennium, some people undoubtedly have similar anxieties to Frollo: is it now the book’s turn to be destroyed by yet another great machine? The inclusion of “post print” in our title is not intended to sound the death knell of the book. Rather, we contend that despite the enduring value of print, digital publishing is “present and active” and is changing the way in which research, particularly in the humanities, is being undertaken. Our approach has three related parts. First, we consider how digital technologies are changing the way in which content is constructed, customised, modified, disseminated, and accessed within a global, distributed network. This section argues that the transition from print to electronic or digital publishing means both losses and gains, particularly with respect to shifts in our approaches to textuality, information, and innovative publishing. Second, we discuss the Children’s Literature Digital Resources (CLDR) project, with which we are involved. This case study of a digitising initiative opens out the transformative possibilities and challenges of digital publishing and e-scholarship for research communities. Third, we reflect on technology’s capacity to bring about major changes in the light of the theoretical and practical issues that have arisen from our discussion. I. Digitising in a “post-print age” We are living in an era that is commonly referred to as “the late age of print” (see Kho) or the “post-print age” (see Gunkel). According to Aarseth, we have reached a point whereby nearly all of our public and personal media have become more or less digital (37). As Kho notes, web newspapers are not only becoming increasingly more popular, but they are also making rather than losing money, and paper-based newspapers are finding it difficult to recruit new readers from the younger generations (37). Not only can such online-only publications update format, content, and structure more economically than print-based publications, but their wide distribution network, speed, and flexibility attract advertising revenue. Hype and hyperbole aside, publishers are not so much discarding their legacy of print, but recognising the folly of not embracing innovative technologies that can add value by presenting information in ways that satisfy users’ needs for content to-go or for edutainment. As Kho notes: “no longer able to satisfy customer demand by producing print-only products, or even by enabling online access to semi-static content, established publishers are embracing new models for publishing, web-style” (42). Advocates of online publishing contend that the major benefits of online publishing over print technology are that it is faster, more economical, and more interactive. However, as Hovav and Gray caution, “e-publishing also involves risks, hidden costs, and trade-offs” (79). The specific focus for these authors is e-journal publishing and they contend that while cost reduction is in editing, production and distribution, if the journal is not open access, then costs relating to storage and bandwith will be transferred to the user. If we put economics aside for the moment, the transition from print to electronic text (e-text), especially with electronic literary works, brings additional considerations, particularly in their ability to make available different reading strategies to print, such as “animation, rollovers, screen design, navigation strategies, and so on” (Hayles 38). Transition from print to e-text In his book, Writing Space, David Bolter follows Victor Hugo’s lead, but does not ask if print technology will be destroyed. Rather, he argues that “the idea and ideal of the book will change: print will no longer define the organization and presentation of knowledge, as it has for the past five centuries” (2). As Hayles noted above, one significant indicator of this change, which is a consequence of the shift from analogue to digital, is the addition of graphical, audio, visual, sonic, and kinetic elements to the written word. A significant consequence of this transition is the reinvention of the book in a networked environment. Unlike the printed book, the networked book is not bound by space and time. Rather, it is an evolving entity within an ecology of readers, authors, and texts. The Web 2.0 platform has enabled more experimentation with blending of digital technology and traditional writing, particularly in the use of blogs, which have spawned blogwriting and the wikinovel. Siva Vaidhyanathan’s The Googlization of Everything: How One Company is Disrupting Culture, Commerce and Community … and Why We Should Worry is a wikinovel or blog book that was produced over a series of weeks with contributions from other bloggers (see: http://www.sivacracy.net/). Penguin Books, in collaboration with a media company, “Six Stories to Start,” have developed six stories—“We Tell Stories,” which involve different forms of interactivity from users through blog entries, Twitter text messages, an interactive google map, and other features. For example, the story titled “Fairy Tales” allows users to customise the story using their own choice of names for characters and descriptions of character traits. Each story is loosely based on a classic story and links take users to synopses of these original stories and their authors and to online purchase of the texts through the Penguin Books sales website. These examples of digital stories are a small part of the digital environment, which exploits computer and online technologies’ capacity to be interactive and immersive. As Janet Murray notes, the interactive qualities of digital environments are characterised by their procedural and participatory abilities, while their immersive qualities are characterised by their spatial and encyclopedic dimensions (71–89). These immersive and interactive qualities highlight different ways of reading texts, which entail different embodied and cognitive functions from those that reading print texts requires. As Hayles argues: the advent of electronic textuality presents us with an unparalleled opportunity to reformulate fundamental ideas about texts and, in the process, to see print as well as electronic texts with fresh eyes (89–90). The transition to e-text also highlights how digitality is changing all aspects of everyday life both inside and outside the academy. Online teaching and e-research Another aspect of the commercial arm of publishing that is impacting on academe and other organisations is the digitising and indexing of print content for niche distribution. Kho offers the example of the Mark Logic Corporation, which uses its XML content platform to repurpose content, create new content, and distribute this content through multiple portals. As the promotional website video for Mark Logic explains, academics can use this service to customise their own textbooks for students by including only articles and book chapters that are relevant to their subject. These are then organised, bound, and distributed by Mark Logic for sale to students at a cost that is generally cheaper than most textbooks. A further example of how print and digital materials can form an integrated, customised source for teachers and students is eFictions (Trimmer, Jennings, & Patterson). eFictions was one of the first print and online short story anthologies that teachers of literature could customise to their own needs. Produced as both a print text collection and a website, eFictions offers popular short stories in English by well-known traditional and contemporary writers from the US, Australia, New Zealand, UK, and Europe, with summaries, notes on literary features, author biographies, and, in one instance, a YouTube movie of the story. In using the eFictions website, teachers can build a customised anthology of traditional and innovative stories to suit their teaching preferences. These examples provide useful indicators of how content is constructed, customised, modified, disseminated, and accessed within a distributed network. However, the question remains as to how to measure their impact and outcomes within teaching and learning communities. As Harley suggests in her study on the use and users of digital resources in the humanities and social sciences, several factors warrant attention, such as personal teaching style, philosophy, and specific disciplinary requirements. However, in terms of understanding the benefits of digital resources for teaching and learning, Harley notes that few providers in her sample had developed any plans to evaluate use and users in a systematic way. In addition to the problems raised in Harley’s study, another relates to how researchers can be supported to take full advantage of digital technologies for e-research. The transformation brought about by information and communication technologies extends and broadens the impact of research, by making its outputs more discoverable and usable by other researchers, and its benefits more available to industry, governments, and the wider community. Traditional repositories of knowledge and information, such as libraries, are juggling the space demands of books and computer hardware alongside increasing reader demand for anywhere, anytime, anyplace access to information. Researchers’ expectations about online access to journals, eprints, bibliographic data, and the views of others through wikis, blogs, and associated social and information networking sites such as YouTube compete with the traditional expectations of the institutions that fund libraries for paper-based archives and book repositories. While university libraries are finding it increasingly difficult to purchase all hardcover books relevant to numerous and varied disciplines, a significant proportion of their budgets goes towards digital repositories (e.g., STORS), indexes, and other resources, such as full-text electronic specialised and multidisciplinary journal databases (e.g., Project Muse and Proquest); electronic serials; e-books; and specialised information sources through fast (online) document delivery services. An area that is becoming increasingly significant for those working in the humanities is the digitising of historical and cultural texts. II. Bringing back the dead: The CLDR project The CLDR project is led by researchers and librarians at the Queensland University of Technology, in collaboration with Deakin University, University of Sydney, and members of the AustLit team at The University of Queensland. The CLDR project is a “Research Community” of the electronic bibliographic database AustLit: The Australian Literature Resource, which is working towards the goal of providing a complete bibliographic record of the nation’s literature. AustLit offers users with a single entry point to enhanced scholarly resources on Australian writers, their works, and other aspects of Australian literary culture and activities. AustLit and its Research Communities are supported by grants from the Australian Research Council and financial and in-kind contributions from a consortium of Australian universities, and by other external funding sources such as the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. Like other more extensive digitisation projects, such as Project Gutenberg and the Rosetta Project, the CLDR project aims to provide a centralised access point for digital surrogates of early published works of Australian children’s literature, with access pathways to existing resources. The first stage of the CLDR project is to provide access to digitised, full-text, out-of-copyright Australian children’s literature from European settlement to 1945, with selected digitised critical works relevant to the field. Texts comprise a range of genres, including poetry, drama, and narrative for young readers and picture books, songs, and rhymes for infants. Currently, a selection of 75 e-texts and digital scans of original texts from Project Gutenberg and Internet Archive have been linked to the Children’s Literature Research Community. By the end of 2009, the CLDR will have digitised approximately 1000 literary texts and a significant number of critical works. Stage II and subsequent development will involve digitisation of selected texts from 1945 onwards. A precursor to the CLDR project has been undertaken by Deakin University in collaboration with the State Library of Victoria, whereby a digital bibliographic index comprising Victorian School Readers has been completed with plans for full-text digital surrogates of a selection of these texts. These texts provide valuable insights into citizenship, identity, and values formation from the 1930s onwards. At the time of writing, the CLDR is at an early stage of development. An extensive survey of out-of-copyright texts has been completed and the digitisation of these resources is about to commence. The project plans to make rich content searchable, allowing scholars from children’s literature studies and education to benefit from the many advantages of online scholarship. What digital publishing and associated digital archives, electronic texts, hypermedia, and so forth foreground is the fact that writers, readers, publishers, programmers, designers, critics, booksellers, teachers, and copyright laws operate within a context that is highly mediated by technology. In his article on large-scale digitisation projects carried out by Cornell and University of Michigan with the Making of America collection of 19th-century American serials and monographs, Hirtle notes that when special collections’ materials are available via the Web, with appropriate metadata and software, then they can “increase use of the material, contribute to new forms of research, and attract new users to the material” (44). Furthermore, Hirtle contends that despite the poor ergonomics associated with most electronic displays and e-book readers, “people will, when given the opportunity, consult an electronic text over the print original” (46). If this preference is universally accurate, especially for researchers and students, then it follows that not only will the preference for electronic surrogates of original material increase, but preference for other kinds of electronic texts will also increase. It is with this preference for electronic resources in mind that we approached the field of children’s literature in Australia and asked questions about how future generations of researchers would prefer to work. If electronic texts become the reference of choice for primary as well as secondary sources, then it seems sensible to assume that researchers would prefer to sit at the end of the keyboard than to travel considerable distances at considerable cost to access paper-based print texts in distant libraries and archives. We considered the best means for providing access to digitised primary and secondary, full text material, and digital pathways to existing online resources, particularly an extensive indexing and bibliographic database. Prior to the commencement of the CLDR project, AustLit had already indexed an extensive number of children’s literature. Challenges and dilemmas The CLDR project, even in its early stages of development, has encountered a number of challenges and dilemmas that centre on access, copyright, economic capital, and practical aspects of digitisation, and sustainability. These issues have relevance for digital publishing and e-research. A decision is yet to be made as to whether the digital texts in CLDR will be available on open or closed/tolled access. The preference is for open access. As Hayles argues, copyright is more than a legal basis for intellectual property, as it also entails ideas about authorship, creativity, and the work as an “immaterial mental construct” that goes “beyond the paper, binding, or ink” (144). Seeking copyright permission is therefore only part of the issue. Determining how the item will be accessed is a further matter, particularly as future technologies may impact upon how a digital item is used. In the case of e-journals, the issue of copyright payment structures are evolving towards a collective licensing system, pay-per-view, and other combinations of print and electronic subscription (see Hovav and Gray). For research purposes, digitisation of items for CLDR is not simply a scan and deliver process. Rather it is one that needs to ensure that the best quality is provided and that the item is both accessible and usable by researchers, and sustainable for future researchers. Sustainability is an important consideration and provides a challenge for institutions that host projects such as CLDR. Therefore, items need to be scanned to a high quality and this requires an expensive scanner and personnel costs. Files need to be in a variety of formats for preservation purposes and so that they may be manipulated to be useable in different technologies (for example, Archival Tiff, Tiff, Jpeg, PDF, HTML). Hovav and Gray warn that when technology becomes obsolete, then content becomes unreadable unless backward integration is maintained. The CLDR items will be annotatable given AustLit’s NeAt funded project: Aus-e-Lit. The Aus-e-Lit project will extend and enhance the existing AustLit web portal with data integration and search services, empirical reporting services, collaborative annotation services, and compound object authoring, editing, and publishing services. For users to be able to get the most out of a digital item, it needs to be searchable, either through double keying or OCR (optimal character recognition). The value of CLDR’s contribution The value of the CLDR project lies in its goal to provide a comprehensive, searchable body of texts (fictional and critical) to researchers across the humanities and social sciences. Other projects seem to be intent on putting up as many items as possible to be considered as a first resort for online texts. CLDR is more specific and is not interested in simply generating a presence on the Web. Rather, it is research driven both in its design and implementation, and in its focussed outcomes of assisting academics and students primarily in their e-research endeavours. To this end, we have concentrated on the following: an extensive survey of appropriate texts; best models for file location, distribution, and use; and high standards of digitising protocols. These issues that relate to data storage, digitisation, collections, management, and end-users of data are aligned with the “Development of an Australian Research Data Strategy” outlined in An Australian e-Research Strategy and Implementation Framework (2006). CLDR is not designed to simply replicate resources, as it has a distinct focus, audience, and research potential. In addition, it looks at resources that may be forgotten or are no longer available in reproduction by current publishing companies. Thus, the aim of CLDR is to preserve both the time and a period of Australian history and literary culture. It will also provide users with an accessible repository of rare and early texts written for children. III. Future directions It is now commonplace to recognize that the Web’s role as information provider has changed over the past decade. New forms of “collective intelligence” or “distributed cognition” (Oblinger and Lombardi) are emerging within and outside formal research communities. Technology’s capacity to initiate major cultural, social, educational, economic, political and commercial shifts has conditioned us to expect the “next big thing.” We have learnt to adapt swiftly to the many challenges that online technologies have presented, and we have reaped the benefits. As the examples in this discussion have highlighted, the changes in online publishing and digitisation have provided many material, network, pedagogical, and research possibilities: we teach online units providing students with access to e-journals, e-books, and customized archives of digitised materials; we communicate via various online technologies; we attend virtual conferences; and we participate in e-research through a global, digital network. In other words, technology is deeply engrained in our everyday lives. In returning to Frollo’s concern that the book would destroy architecture, Umberto Eco offers a placatory note: “in the history of culture it has never happened that something has simply killed something else. Something has profoundly changed something else” (n. pag.). Eco’s point has relevance to our discussion of digital publishing. The transition from print to digital necessitates a profound change that impacts on the ways we read, write, and research. As we have illustrated with our case study of the CLDR project, the move to creating digitised texts of print literature needs to be considered within a dynamic network of multiple causalities, emergent technological processes, and complex negotiations through which digital texts are created, stored, disseminated, and used. Technological changes in just the past five years have, in many ways, created an expectation in the minds of people that the future is no longer some distant time from the present. Rather, as our title suggests, the future is both present and active. References Aarseth, Espen. “How we became Postdigital: From Cyberstudies to Game Studies.” Critical Cyber-culture Studies. Ed. David Silver and Adrienne Massanari. New York: New York UP, 2006. 37–46. An Australian e-Research Strategy and Implementation Framework: Final Report of the e-Research Coordinating Committee. Commonwealth of Australia, 2006. Bolter, Jay David. Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the History of Writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1991. Eco, Umberto. “The Future of the Book.” 1994. 3 June 2008 ‹http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_future_of_book.html>. Gunkel, David. J. “What's the Matter with Books?” Configurations 11.3 (2003): 277–303. Harley, Diane. “Use and Users of Digital Resources: A Focus on Undergraduate Education in the Humanities and Social Sciences.” Research and Occasional Papers Series. Berkeley: University of California. Centre for Studies in Higher Education. 12 June 2008 ‹http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_future_of_book.html>. Hayles, N. Katherine. My Mother was a Computer: Digital Subjects and Literary Texts. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2005. Hirtle, Peter B. “The Impact of Digitization on Special Collections in Libraries.” Libraries & Culture 37.1 (2002): 42–52. Hovav, Anat and Paul Gray. “Managing Academic E-journals.” Communications of the ACM 47.4 (2004): 79–82. Hugo, Victor. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Notre-Dame de Paris). Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth editions, 1993. Kho, Nancy D. “The Medium Gets the Message: Post-Print Publishing Models.” EContent 30.6 (2007): 42–48. Oblinger, Diana and Marilyn Lombardi. “Common Knowledge: Openness in Higher Education.” Opening up Education: The Collective Advancement of Education Through Open Technology, Open Content and Open Knowledge. Ed. Toru Liyoshi and M. S. Vijay Kumar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007. 389–400. Murray, Janet H. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001. Trimmer, Joseph F., Wade Jennings, and Annette Patterson. eFictions. New York: Harcourt, 2001.

In mid-2001, in a cultural policy discussion at Arts Queensland, an Australian state government arts policy and funding apparatus, a senior arts bureaucrat seeking to draw a funding client’s gaze back to the bigger picture of what the state government was trying to achieve through its cultural policy settings excused his own abstracting comments with the phrase, “but then I might just be a policy ‘wank’”. There was some awkward laughter before one of his colleagues asked, “did you mean a policy ‘wonk’”? The incident was a misstatement of a term adopted in the 1990s to characterise the policy workers in the Clinton Whitehouse (Cunningham). This was not its exclusive use, but many saw Clinton as an exemplary wonk: less a pragmatic politician than one entertained by the elaboration of policy. The policy work of Clinton’s kitchen cabinet was, in part, driven by a pervasive rationalist belief in the usefulness of ordered policy processes as a method of producing social and economic outcomes, and, in part, by the seductions of policy-play: its ambivalences, its conundrums, and, in some sense, its aesthetics (Klein 193-94). There, far from being characterised as unproductive “self-abuse” of the body-politic, policy processes were alive as a pragmatic technology, an operationalisation of ideology, as an aestheticised field of play, but more than anything as a central rationalist tenant of government action. This final idea—the possibilities of policy for effecting change, promoting development, meeting government objectives—is at the centre of the bureaucratic imagination. Policy is effective. And a concomitant belief is that ordered or organised policy processes result in the best policy and the best outcomes. Starting with Harold Lasswell, policy theorists extended the general rationalist suppositions of Western representative democracies into executive government by arguing for the value of information/knowledge and the usefulness of ordered process in addressing thus identified policy problems. In the post-war period particularly, a case can be made for the usefulness of policy processes to government—although, in a paradox, these rationalist conceptions of the policy process were strangely irrational, even Utopian, in their view of transformational capacities possibilities of policy. The early policy scientists often moved beyond a view of policy science as a useful tool, to the advocacy of policy science and the policy scientist as panaceas for public ills (Parsons 18-19). The Utopian ambitions of policy science finds one of their extremes in the contemporary interest in whole-of-government approaches to policy making. Whole-of-governmentalism, concern with co-ordination of policy and delivery across all areas of the state, can seen as produced out of Western governments’ paradoxical concern with (on one hand) order, totality, and consistency, and (on the other) deconstructing existing mechanisms of public administration. Whole-of-governmentalism requires a horizontal purview of government goals, programs, outputs, processes, politics, and outcomes, alongside—and perhaps in tension with—the long-standing vertical purview that is fundamental to ministerial responsibility. This often presents a set of public management problems largely internal to government. Policy discussion and decision-making, while affecting community outcomes and stakeholder utility, are, in this circumstance, largely inter-agency in focus. Any eventual policy document may well have bureaucrats rather than citizens as its target readers—or at least as its closest readers. Internally, cohesion of objective, discourse, tool and delivery are pursued as a prime interests of policy making. Failing at Policy So what happens when whole-of-government policy processes, particularly cultural policy processes, break down or fail? Is there anything productive to be retrieved from a failed fantasy of policy cohesion? This paper examines the utility of a failure to cohere and order in cultural policy processes. I argue that the conditions of contemporary cultural policy-making, particularly the tension between the “boutique” scale of cultural policy-making bodies and the revised, near universal, remit of cultural policy, require policy work to be undertaken in an environment and in such a way that failure is almost inevitable. Coherence and cohesions are fundamental principles of whole-of-government policy but cultural policy ambitions are necessarily too comprehensive to be achievable. This is especially so for the small arts or cultural offices government that normally act as lead agencies for cultural policy development within government. Yet, that these failed processes can still give rise to positive outcomes or positive intermediate outputs that can be taken up in a productive way in the ongoing cycle of policy work that categorises contemporary cultural governance. Herein, I detail the development of Building the Future, a cultural policy planning paper (and the name of a policy planning process) undertaken within Arts Queensland in 1999 and 2000. (While this process is now ten years in the past, it is only with a decade past that as a consultant I am in apposition to write about the material.) The abandonment of this process before the production of a public policy program allows something to be said about the utility and role of failure in cultural policy-making. The working draft of Building the Future never became a public document, but the eight months of its development helped produce a series of shifts in the discourse of Queensland Government cultural policy: from “arts” to “creative industries”; and from arts bureaucracy-centred cultural policy to the whole-of-government policy frameworks. These concepts were then taken up and elaborated in the Creative Queensland policy statement published by Arts Queensland in October 2002, particularly the concern with creative industries; whole-of-government cultural policy; and the repositioning of Arts Queensland as a service agency to other potential cultural funding-bodies within government. Despite the failure of the Building the Future process, it had a role in the production of the policy document and policy processes that superseded it. This critique of cultural policy-making rather than cultural policy texts, announcements and settings is offered as part of a project to bring to cultural policy studies material and theoretical accounts of the particularities of making cultural policy. While directions in cultural policy have much to do with the overall directions of government—which might over the past decade be categorised as focus on de-regulation, out-sourcing of services—there are developments in cultural policy settings and in cultural policy processes that are particular to cultural policy and cultural policy-making. Central to the development of cultural policy studies and to cultural policy is a transformational broadening of the operant definition of culture within government (O'Regan). Following Raymond Williams, the domain of culture is broadened to include the high culture, popular culture, folk culture and the culture of everyday life. Accordingly, in some sense, every issue of governance is deemed to have a cultural dimension—be it policy questions around urban space, tourism, community building and so on. Contemporary governments are required to act with a concern for cultural questions both within and across a number of long-persisting and otherwise discrete policy silos. This has implications for cultural policy makers and for program delivery. The definition of culture as “everyday life”, while truistically defendable, becomes unwieldy as an imprimatur or a container for administrative activity. Transforming cultural policy into a domain incorporating most social policy and significant elements of economic policy makes the domain titanically large. Potentially, it compromises usual government efforts to order policy activity through the division or apportionment of responsibility (Glover and Cunningham 19). The problem has given rise to a new mode of policy-making which attends to the co-ordination of policy across and between levels of government, known as whole-of government policy-making (see O’Regan). Within the domain of cultural policy the task of whole-of-government cultural policy is complicated by the position of, and the limits upon, arts and cultural bureaux within state and federal governments. Dedicated cultural planning bureaux often operate as “boutique” agencies. They are usually discrete line agencies or line departments within government—only rarely are they part of the core policy function of departments of a Premier or a Prime Minister. Instead, like most line agencies, they lack the leverage within the bureaucracy or policy apparatus to deliver whole-of-government cultural policy change. In some sense, failure is the inevitable outcome of all policy processes, particularly when held up against the mechanistic representation of policy processes in policy typical of policy handbooks (see Bridgman and Davis 42). Against such models, which describe policy a series of discrete linear steps, all policy efforts fail. The rationalist assumptions of early policy models—and the rigid templates for policy process that arise from their assumptions—in retrospect condemn every policy process to failure or at least profound shortcoming. This is particularly so with whole-of-government cultural policy making To re-think this, it can be argued that the error then is not really in the failure of the process, which is invariably brought about by the difficulty for coherent policy process to survive exogenous complexity, but instead the error rests with the simplicity of policy models and assumptions about the possibility of cohesion. In some sense, mechanistic policy processes make failure endogenous. The contemporary experience of making policy has tended to erode any fantasies of order, clear process, or, even, clear-sightedness within government. Achieving a coherence to the policy message is nigh on impossible—likewise cohesion of the policy framework is unlikely. Yet, importantly, failed policy is not without value. The churn of policy work—the exercise of attempting cohrent policy-making—constitutes, in some sense, the deliberative function of government, and potentially operates as a force (and site) of change. Policy briefings, reports, and draft policies—the constitution of ideas in the policy process and the mechanism for their dissemination within the body of government and perhaps to other stakeholders—are discursive acts in the process of extending the discourse of government and forming its later actions. For arts and cultural policy agencies in particular, who act without the leverage or resources of central agencies, the expansive ambitions of whole-of-government cultural policy makes failure inevitable. In such a circumstance, retrieving some benefits at the margins of policy processes, through the churn of policy work towards cohesion, is an important consolation. Case study: Cultural Policy 2000 The policy process I wish to examine is now complete. It ran over the period 1999–2002, although I wish to concentrate on my involvement in the process in early 2000 during which, as a consultant to Arts Queensland, I generated a draft policy document, Building the Future: A policy framework for the next five years (working draft). The imperative to develop a new state cultural policy followed the election of the first Beattie Labor government in July 1998. By 1999, senior Arts Queensland staff began to argue (within government at least) for the development of a new state cultural policy. The bureaucrats perceived policy development as one way of establishing “traction” in the process of bidding for new funds for the portfolio. Arts Minister Matt Foley was initially reluctant to “green-light” the policy process, but eventually in early 1999 he acceded to it on the advice of Arts Queensland, the industry, his own policy advisors and the Department of Premier. As stated above, this case study is offered now because the passing of time makes the analysis of relatively sensitive material possible. From the outset, an abbreviated timeframe for consultation and drafting seem to guarantee a difficult birth for the policy document. This was compounded by a failure to clarity the aims and process of the project. In presenting the draft policy to the advisory group, it became clear that there was no agreed strategic purpose to the document: Was it to be an advertisement, a framework for policy ideas, an audit, or a report on achievements? Tied to this, were questions about the audience for the policy statement. Was it aimed at the public, the arts industry, bureaucrats inside Arts Queensland, or, in keeping with the whole-of-government inflection to the document and its putative use in bidding for funds inside government, bureaucrats outside of Arts Queensland? My own conception of the document was as a cultural policy framework for the whole-of-government for the coming five years. It would concentrate on cultural policy in three realms: Arts Queensland; the arts instrumentalities; and other departments (particularly the cultural initiatives undertaken by the Department of Premier and the Department of State Development). In order to do this I articulated (for myself) a series of goals for the document. It needed to provide the philosophical underpinnings for a new arts and cultural policy, discuss the cultural significance of “community” in the context of the arts, outline expansion plans for the arts infrastructure throughout Queensland, advance ideas for increased employment in the arts and cultural industries, explore the development of new audiences and markets, address contemporary issues of technology, globalisation and culture commodification, promote a whole-of-government approach to the arts and cultural industries, address social justice and equity concerns associated with cultural diversity, and present examples of current and new arts and cultural practices. Five key strategies were identified: i) building strong communities and supporting diversity; ii) building the creative industries and the cultural economy; iii) developing audiences and telling Queensland’s stories; iv) delivering to the world; and v) a new role for government. While the second aim of building the creative industries and the cultural economy was an addition to the existing Australian arts policy discourse, it is the articulation of a new role for government that is most radical here. The document went to the length of explicitly suggesting a series of actions to enable Arts Queensland to re-position itself inside government: develop an ongoing policy cycle; position Arts Queensland as a lead agency for cultural policy development; establish a mechanism for joint policy planning across the arts portfolio; adopt a whole-of-government approach to policy-making and program delivery; use arts and cultural strategies to deliver on social and economic policy agendas; centralise some cultural policy functions and project; maintain and develop mechanisms and peer assessment; establish long-term strategic relationships with the Commonwealth and local government; investigate new vehicles for arts and cultural investment; investigate partnerships between industry, community and government; and develop appropriate performance measures for the cultural industries. In short, the scope of the document was titanically large, and prohibitively expansive as a basis for policy change. A chief limitation of these aims is that they seem to place the cohesion and coherence of the policy discourse at the centre of the project—when it might have better privileged a concern with policy outputs and industry/community outcomes. The subsequent dismal fortunes of the document are instructive. The policy document went through several drafts over the first half of 2000. By August 2000, I had removed myself from the process and handed the drafting back to Arts Queensland which then produced shorter version less discursive than my initial draft. However, by November 2000, it is reasonable to say that the policy document was abandoned. Significantly, after May 2000 the working drafts began to be used as internal discussion documents with government. Thus, despite the abandonment of the policy process, largely due to the unworkable breadth of its ambition, the document had a continued policy utility. The subsequent discussions helped organise future policy statements and structural adjustments by government. After the re-election of the Beattie government in January 2001, a more substantial policy process was commenced with the earlier policy documents as a starting point. By early 2002 the document was in substantial draft. The eventual policy, Creative Queensland, was released in October 2002. Significantly, this document sought to advance two ideas that I believe the earlier process did much to mobilise: a whole-of-government approach to culture; and a broader operant definition of culture. It is important not to see these as ideas merely existing “textually” in the earlier policy draft of Building the Future, but instead to see them as ideas that had begun adhere themselves to the cultural policy mechanism of government, and begun to be deployed in internal policy discussions and in program design, before finding an eventual home in a published policy text. Analysis The productive effects of the aborted policy process in which I participated are difficult to quantify. They are difficult, in fact, to separate out from governments’ ongoing processes of producing and circulating policy ideas. What is clear is that the effects of Building the Future were not entirely negated by it never becoming public. Instead, despite only circulating to a readership of bureaucrats it represented the ideas of part of the bureaucracy at a point in time. In this instance, a “failed” policy process, and its intermediate outcomes, the draft policy, through the churn of policy work, assisted government towards an eventual policy statement and a new form of governmental organisation. This suggests that processes of cultural policy discussion, or policy churn, can be as productive as the public “enunciation” of formal policy in helping to organise ideas within government and determine programs and the allocation of resources. This is even so where the Utopian idealism of the policy process is abandoned for something more graspable or politic. For the small arts or cultural policy bureau this is an important incremental benefit. Two final implications should be noted. The first is for models of policy process. Bridgman and Davis’s model of the Australian policy cycle, despite its mechanistic qualities, is ambiguous about where the policy process begins and ends. In one instance they represent it as linear but strictly circular, always coming back to its own starting point (27). Elsewhere, however, they represent it as linear, but not necessarily circular, passing through eight stages with a defined beginning and end: identification of issues; policy analysis; choosing policy instruments; consultation; co-ordination; decision; implementation; and evaluation (28–29). What is clear from the 1999-2002 policy process—if we take the full period between when Arts Queensland began to organise the development of a new arts policy and its publication as Creative Queensland in October 2002—is that the policy process was not a linear one progressing in an orderly fashion towards policy outcomes. Instead, Building the Future, is a snapshot in time (namely early to mid-2000) of a fragmenting policy process; it reveals policy-making as involving a concurrency of policy activity rather than a progression through linear steps. Following Mark Considine’s conception of policy work as the state’s effort at “system-wide information exchange and policy transfer” (271), the document is concerned less in the ordering of resources than the organisation of policy discourse. The churn of policy is the mobilisation of information, or for Considine: policy-making, when considered as an innovation system among linked or interdependent actors, becomes a learning and regulating web based upon continuous exchanges of information and skill. Learning occurs through regulated exchange, rather than through heroic insight or special legislative feats of the kind regularly described in newspapers. (269) The acceptance of this underpins a turn in contemporary accounts of policy (Considine 252-72) where policy processes become contingent and incomplete Policy. The ordering of policy is something to be attempted rather than achieved. Policy becomes pragmatic and ad hoc. It is only coherent in as much as a policy statement represents a bringing together of elements of an agency or government’s objectives and program. The order, in some sense, arrives through the act of collection, narrativisation and representation. The second implication is more directly for cultural policy makers facing the prospect of whole-of-government cultural policy making. While it is reasonable for government to wish to make coherent totalising statements about its cultural interests, such ambitions bring the near certainty of failure for the small agency. Yet these failures of coherence and cohesion should be viewed as delivering incremental benefits through the effort and process of this policy “churn”. As was the case with the Building the Future policy process, while aborted it was not a totally wasted effort. Instead, Building the Future mobilised a set of ideas within Arts Queensland and within government. For the small arts or cultural bureaux approaching the enormous task of whole-of government cultural policy making such marginal benefits are important. References Arts Queensland. Creative Queensland: The Queensland Government Cultural Policy 2002. Brisbane: Arts Queensland, 2002. Bridgman, Peter, and Glyn Davis. Australian Policy Handbook. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin, 1998. Considine, Mark. Public Policy: A Critical Approach. South Melbourne: Palgrave Macmillan, 1996. Cunningham, Stuart. "Willing Wonkers at the Policy Factory." Media Information Australia 73 (1994): 4-7. Glover, Stuart, and Stuart Cunningham. "The New Brisbane." Artlink 23.2 (2003): 16-23. Glover, Stuart, and Gillian Gardiner. Building the Future: A Policy Framework for the Next Five Years (Working Draft). Brisbane: Arts Queensland, 2000. Klein, Joe. "Eight Years." New Yorker 16 & 23 Oct. 2000: 188-217. O'Regan, Tom. "Cultural Policy: Rejuvenate or Wither". 2001. rtf.file. (26 July): AKCCMP. 9 Aug. 2001. ‹http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/cmp>. Parsons, Wayne. Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis. Aldershot: Edward Edgar, 1995.Williams, Raymond. Key Words: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana, 1976.

by Jacqueline, Wai-ting Wong.
Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1994.
Includes bibliographical references (p. 107-109).
Abstract --- p.i
Acknowledgement --- p.iii
List of Tables --- p.viii
List of Figures --- p.ix
Chapter 1 --- Introduction --- p.1
Chapter 2 --- Chinese Information Processing --- p.6
Chapter 2.1 --- Chinese Word Segmentation --- p.7
Chapter 2.1.1 --- Statistical Method --- p.8
Chapter 2.1.2 --- Probabilistic Method --- p.9
Chapter 2.1.3 --- Linguistic Method --- p.10
Chapter 2.2 --- Automatic Indexing --- p.10
Chapter 2.2.1 --- Title Indexing --- p.11
Chapter 2.2.2 --- Free-Text Searching --- p.11
Chapter 2.2.3 --- Citation Indexing --- p.12
Chapter 2.3 --- Information Retrieval Systems --- p.13
Chapter 2.3.1 --- Users' Assessment of IRS --- p.13
Chapter 2.4 --- Concluding Remarks --- p.15
Chapter 3 --- Survey on Classification --- p.16
Chapter 3.1 --- Text Classification --- p.17
Chapter 3.2 --- Survey on Classification Schemes --- p.18
Chapter 3.2.1 --- Commonly Used Classification Systems --- p.18
Chapter 3.2.2 --- Classification of Newspapers --- p.31
Chapter 3.3 --- Concluding Remarks --- p.37
Chapter 4 --- System Models and the ACTION Algorithm --- p.38
Chapter 4.1 --- Factors Affecting Systems Performance --- p.38
Chapter 4.1.1 --- Specificity --- p.39
Chapter 4.1.2 --- Exhaustivity --- p.40
Chapter 4.2 --- Assumptions and Scope --- p.42
Chapter 4.2.1 --- Assumptions --- p.42
Chapter 4.2.2 --- System Scope ´ؤ Data Flow Diagrams --- p.44
Chapter 4.3 --- System Models --- p.48
Chapter 4.3.1 --- Article --- p.48
Chapter 4.3.2 --- Matching Table --- p.49
Chapter 4.3.3 --- Forest --- p.51
Chapter 4.3.4 --- Matching --- p.53
Chapter 4.4 --- Classification Rules --- p.54
Chapter 4.5 --- The ACTION Algorithm --- p.56
Chapter 4.5.1 --- Algorithm Design Objectives --- p.56
Chapter 4.5.2 --- Measuring Node Significance --- p.56
Chapter 4.5.3 --- Pseudocodes --- p.61
Chapter 4.6 --- Concluding Remarks --- p.64
Chapter 5 --- Analysis of Results and Validation --- p.66
Chapter 5.1 --- Seeking for Exhaustivity Rather Than Specificity --- p.67
Chapter 5.1.1 --- The News Article --- p.67
Chapter 5.1.2 --- The Matching Results --- p.68
Chapter 5.1.3 --- The Keyword Values --- p.68
Chapter 5.1.4 --- Analysis of Classification Results --- p.71
Chapter 5.2 --- Catering for Hierarchical Relationships Between Classes and Subclasses --- p.72
Chapter 5.2.1 --- The News Article --- p.72
Chapter 5.2.2 --- The Matching Results --- p.73
Chapter 5.2.3 --- The Keyword Values --- p.74
Chapter 5.2.4 --- Analysis of Classification Results --- p.75
Chapter 5.3 --- A Representative With Zero Occurrence --- p.78
Chapter 5.3.1 --- The News Article --- p.78
Chapter 5.3.2 --- The Matching Results --- p.79
Chapter 5.3.3 --- The Keyword Values --- p.80
Chapter 5.3.4 --- Analysis of Classification Results --- p.81
Chapter 5.4 --- Statistical Analysis --- p.83
Chapter 5.4.1 --- Classification Results with Highest Occurrence Frequency --- p.83
Chapter 5.4.2 --- Classification Results with Zero Occurrence Frequency --- p.85
Chapter 5.4.3 --- Distribution of Classification Results on Level Numbers --- p.86
Chapter 5.5 --- Concluding Remarks --- p.87
Chapter 5.5.1 --- Advantageous Characteristics of ACTION --- p.88
Chapter 6 --- Conclusion --- p.93
Chapter 6.1 --- Perspectives in Document Representation --- p.93
Chapter 6.2 --- Classification Schemes --- p.95
Chapter 6.3 --- Classification System Model --- p.95
Chapter 6.4 --- The ACTION Algorithm --- p.96
Chapter 6.5 --- Advantageous Characteristics of the ACTION Algorithm --- p.96
Chapter 6.6 --- Testing and Validating the ACTION algorithm --- p.98
Chapter 6.7 --- Future Work --- p.99
Chapter 6.8 --- A Final Remark --- p.100
Chapter A --- System Models --- p.102
Chapter B --- Classification Rules --- p.104
Chapter C --- Node Significance Definitions --- p.105
References --- p.107