Journal articles on the topic 'Glasgow (Scotland). Stationery Department'

MAY, F. & HIGHTON, A. J. 1997. Geology of the Invermoriston district. Memoir for 1:50 000 Geological Sheet 73W (Scotland). x + 77 pp. London: HMSO for the British Geological Survey. Price £30.00 (paperback). ISBN 0 11 884532 2.HALL, I. H. S., BROWNE, M. A. E. & FORSYTH, I. H. 1997. Geology of the Glasgow district. Memoir for 1[ratio ]50000 Geological Sheet 30E (Scotland). x + 117 pp. London: HMSO for the British Geological Survey. Price £45.00 (paperback). ISBN 0 11 884534 9.PATERSON, I. B., MCADAM, A. D. & MACPHERSON, K. A. T. 1998. Geology of the Hamilton District. Memoir for 1:50 000 Geological Sheet 23W (Scotland). viii + 94 pp. London: The Stationery Office for the British Geological Survey. Price £35.00 (paperback). ISBN 0 11 884533 0.

Murray McLachlan's première of Erik Chisholm's Sonata in A minor on 4 January marked the centenary of Chisholm's birth (in Cathcart, outside Glasgow) to the day itself. Chisholm was a considerable force for good while he was busy in Scotland: the first British performances of Les Troyens, Béatrice et Bénédicte and Idomeneo; visits to his ‘Active Society for the Propagation of Contemporary Music’ in Glasgow from Bartók, Casella, Schmitt, Sorabji (a close friend), Szymanowski and other luminaries. But he could, apparently, be a difficult man, and with his posting to Singapore by ENSA in 1943, to conduct the Singapore Symphony Orchestra, and subsequent nomination to the chair of the music department of the University of Cape Town in 1946, his native land seems to have been content to forget the outsized personality whom Arnold Bax called ‘the most progressive composer that Scotland has produced’.

Home to just over five million souls, Scotland is the most sparsely populated part of Britain. The people are overwhelmingly white (some 98.7%) and English speaking. Levels of deprivation vary considerably across the country as a whole. Some 20% of the school population was entitled to free school meals in 1995, though the figure was twice as high in the City of Glasgow, where life expectancy is 10 years below that of affluent parts of the south of England. In July 1997 proposals were presented for the creation of a Scottish parliament. Whilst the Westminster parliament would ‘remain sovereign’, many powers would be devolved to Edinburgh, including those relating to virtually every aspect of education. So today, the Scottish Executive Education Department (or SEED) administers Scottish Executive policy for pre-school and school education in co-operation with local authorities that are responsible for providing school education in their areas. No less than 96% of youngsters are educated in state schools. Schools associated with religious groups including the Roman Catholic Church were incorporated into the state system in the 1920s. The annual cost of running the whole education system is a little under £5 billion or some 9% of Scottish GDP [1, p. 17].

This work presents important information about the medicolegal systems in two different countries through the author's personal experience during his work. In Libya, the Medicolegal Centres, attached to the Justice Department, receives all cases referred by the Director of Public Prosecution or by the Judge. These constitute a wide range of cases which include in descending order of frequency, age estimation, injuries, autopsies, sexual offences, criminal responsibility, medical mishaps, disputed paternity and nullity of marriage. In Scotland, the Department of Forensic Medicine and Science at the University of Glasgow receive only a proportion of the total number of cases investigated by the Procurator Fiscal in Glasgow. These are exclusively deaths that require medicolegal autopsies, which average 458 per year. The Medicolegal Centre in Benghazi receives all referrals from the courts, which average 1780 cases per year, but autopsies constitute only 14.4% (256 cases per year). A total of 1144 autopsies performed in Glasgow during a period of 2.5 years, and 7121 medicolegal cases investigated in Benghazi during a period of 4 years (1022 of that were autopsies), are presented in 12 tables and duly discussed. The outstanding observation is the marked male preponderance in deaths from unnatural causes in Benghazi, (80% of the total), compared to less marked male preponderance in Glasgow, (60% of the total). This is explained by the fact that due to social custom in Libya, females have limited outdoor activities and lead a rather domestic life compared to females in Britain.

In the following article, Christine Hamilton and Adrienne Scullion review the system of theatre provision and production that exists in the rural areas of Scotland, most especially in the Highlands and Islands, assessing the policy framework that exists in the nation as a whole and in the Highlands and Islands in particular. They highlight the role and responsibilities of volunteers within the distribution of professional theatre in Scotland, challenge the response of locally based theatre-makers and nationally responsible agencies to represent rural Scotland, and raise issues fundamental to the provision of culture nationally. In doing so, they question what we expect theatre policy to deliver in rural areas, and what we expect rural agents to contribute to theatre provision and policy. Finally, they suggest that, in the system of rural arts in Scotland, there are wider lessons for the development of arts in and the arts of other sparsely populated and fragile communities. Christine Hamilton is the director and Adrienne Scullion the academic director of the Centre for Cultural Policy Research at the University of Glasgow, where Adrienne teaches in the Department of Theatre, Film, and Television Studies.

The Ship Stability Research Centre, Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, The Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde, Scotland, UKA linearized three-dimensional potential flow formulation in time domain is applied to calculate wave-making resistance of ships in calm water. Steady-state perturbation potentials for resistance are obtained as the steady-state limit of the surge radiation impulse response function using the transient free surface source distribution over the body surface. Five different vessels are used to validate the present numerical approximation. The results, including steady-state wave-making resistance, sinkage force, trim moment, and wave profile along the waterline, are compared with other published numerical and experimental results.

In this article Adrienne Scullion reviews the citizenship debate in education policy within contemporary – and specifically post-devolution – Scotland. She identifies something of the impact that this debate has had on theatre-making for children and young people, with a particular focus on projects that are participatory in nature. Her key examples are drawn from TAG Theatre Company's ‘Making the Nation’ project, a major three-year initiative that sought to engage children and young people throughout Scotland in ideas around democracy, politics, and government. Revisiting a classic cultural policy stand-off between instrumental and aesthetic outcomes, she asks whether a policy-sanctioned emphasis on process, transferable skills, and capacity building limits the potential for theatre projects to develop other kinds of theatre skills, such as critical reading and/or spectatorship. With its emphasis on participatory projects rather than plays for children and young people, the article complements her earlier essay, ‘“And So This Is What Happened”: War Stories in New Drama for Children’, in NTQ 84 (November 2005). Adrienne Scullion teaches in the Department of Theatre, Film, and Television Studies at the University of Glasgow.

The creation of the devolved Scottish parliament in 1999, argues Adrienne Scullion, has the potential to change everything that has been understood and imagined or thought and speculated about Scotland. The devolved parliament shifts the governance of the country, resets financial provisions and socio-economic management, recreates Scottish politics and Scottish society – and affects how Scotland is represented and imagined by artists of all kinds. The radical context of devolution should also afford Scottish criticism an unprecedented opportunity to rethink its more rigid paradigms and structures. Specifically, this article questions what impact political devolution might have on the rhetoric of Scottish cultural criticism by paralleling feminist analysis of three plays by women premiered in Scotland in 2000 with the flexible, even hybrid, model of the nation afford by devolution, resetting identity within Scottish culture as much less predictable and much more inclusive than has previously been understood. An earlier versions was delivered by the author on 5 March 2001 to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in receipt of the biennial RSE/BP Prize Lectureship in the Humanities. Adrienne Scullion teaches in the Department of Theatre, Film and Television Studies at the University of Glasgow, where she is also the academic director of the Centre for Cultural Policy Research.

This seminar was held at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, on 27 May 2016. It was jointly organised by BAAL members Nicola Bermingham (Heriot-Watt University) and Gwennan Higham (Swansea University) in collaboration with COST Action IS1306 New Speakers in a Multilingual Europe: Opportunities and Challenges, and supported by the Intercultural Research Centre and the Department of Languages and Intercultural Studies at Heriot-Watt University. Ten papers and two keynote speeches were given. The keynote speakers were Professor Alison Phipps (Glasgow University) and Professor Máiréad Nic Craith (Heriot-Watt University). A round-table discussion was also held, with invited speakers including Ms Mandy Watts from Education Scotland; Professor Bernadette O'Rourke, chair of COST Action IS1306; Dr Cassie Smith Christmas, University of the Highlands and Islands; and Dr Kathryn Jones, Director of Language Policy and Research at the Welsh Centre for Language Planning.

As a prelude to the paper it should be stated that its genesis originates in conference presentations delivered on two separate occasions to two separate audiences. The first was to a mixed group of teacher educators, Roman Catholic priests and nuns, as well as others from diverse religious traditions, at a one-day conference on religion and pluralism held in Dublin, Republic of Ireland. The expressed focus for this conference was ‘inter-faith’ but with the addition of a secular dimension. The second presentation was to an international group largely comprised of comparative education scholars in Glasgow, Scotland. Although the two presentations were broadly similar in content the Dublin paper had a distinct orientation. Given that the publicly-funded Irish school system was characterised by a strong involvement of religion (Department of Education and Skills, 2017) – in particular, that of the Roman Catholic Church, the dominant tradition in that country – the Dublin presentation pursued an approach which sought to widen the educational agenda. Specifically, it focused upon the continuing discussion concerning the role of secularity in school systems where confessional approaches to religion were sanctioned by the central state. On the other hand, the Glasgow presentation was more ‘academic’ in tone, seeking to re-position secularity and religion in a non-oppositional relationship which was, in turn, argued to be functional for 21st education systems.

The renowned Islamic theologian, Professor Mona Siddiqui OBE, is Professor of Islamic and Interreligious Studies at the University of Edinburgh. Born in Karachi, Pakistan, the family moved to the UK in 1968 and she currently resides in Scotland. She earned her BA in Arabic and French at the University of Leeds, and her MA in Middle-Eastern Studies and PhD in Classical Islamic Law from the University of Manchester. In addition to being the first Muslim woman to be appointed the Head of Theology and Religious Studies Department at University of Glasgow, her academic work includes texts on the Qur’an (2007), Islam (2010) and Islamic Law (2012a). Professor Siddiqui has also worked extensively on promoting interfaith relations, for which she was awarded an OBE in 2011. She currently holds a visiting professorship at the universities of Utrecht and Tilburg and is an associate scholar at Georgetown University’s Berkley Centre for Religion, Peace and World Affairs.

AbstractObjective:In Scotland, patients with suspected head and neck cancer are referred on the basis of the Scottish Referral Guidelines for Suspected Cancer, rather than the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. A chest X-ray should be requested by the general practitioner at the same time as referral for persistent hoarseness. The evidence for this is level 4.Methods:This audit identified adherence to this recommendation and X-ray results. All ‘urgent suspicion of cancer’ referrals to the ENT department in the National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde for 2015–2016 were audited.Results:Persistent hoarseness for more than 3 weeks instigated referral in 318 patients (15.7 per cent). Chest X-ray was performed in 120 patients (38 per cent), which showed: no abnormality in 116 (96.7 per cent), features of infection in 2 (1.7 per cent) and something else in 2 patients (1.7 per cent). No chest X-ray altered the management of a patient.Conclusion:Performance of chest X-ray does not alter management and its removal from the Scottish Referral Guidelines for Suspected Cancer is recommended.

Objective The purpose of this study was to identify and compare lateral cephalometric measurements in noncleft parents of children with cleft palate (CP) and cleft lip (CL), and cleft lip and palate (CLP). The hypothesis was that discriminant analysis would enable identification of morphometric features that predispose to orofacial clefting and that differ for CP, CL, and CLP and are unevenly distributed within parental pairs. Design This was a prospective, parametric analysis. Setting The study was conducted by the Department of Dental Health, University of Dundee, and the Department of Statistics, University of Glasgow, Scotland. Subjects From a completely ascertained sample of 286 children with cleft lip and/or palate born in the West of Scotland between January 1, 1980, and December 31, 1984, a sample of 83 parents of children with nonsyndromic clefts volunteered for lateral cephalometric examination. Methods Thirty-seven cranial and 99 facial landmarks were identified and 37 linear, angular, and area parameters were used to describe the craniofacial skeleton. Analysis of variance was used for a three-way comparison of CL/CLP/CP, and stepwise discriminant analysis was used to determine which variables discriminate best between cleft lip with or without cleft palate [CL(P)] and isolated cleft palate (CP) parents. Results There were no significant differences whatsoever in the craniofacial morphology between the parents of children with CL and CLP, but differences were found between the CL(P) and CP groups. The most significant of these were in mandibular length, ramus length, mandibular area, and cranial area. Mandibular ramus length alone discriminated between the two groups in 71.4% of CP and in 62.5% of CL(P) cases, while separate analysis of fathers and mothers showed that ramus length and cranial height together reliably distinguish between mothers in 75% of CP and 80% of CL(P) cases. Conclusions Previous studies suggests that unaffected parents with nonsyndromic children with cleft lip and/or palate have differences in their craniofacial morphology when compared to the general population. This study indicates that these morphologic features differ for CP and CL(P).

IntroductionWeight management interventions in research studies and in clinical practice differ in length, advice, frequency of meetings, staff and cost. Very few real-world programmes have published patient-related outcomes, and those that have published used different ways of reporting the information, making it impossible to compare interventions and further develop the evidence base. Developing a core outcome set for behavioural weight management programmes (BWMPs) for adults with overweight and obesity will allow different BWMPs to be compared and reveal which interventions work best for which members of the population.Methods and analysisAn expert group, comprised of 40 people who work in, refer to, or attend BWMPs for adults with overweight and obesity, will be asked to decide which outcomes services should report. An online Delphi process will be employed to help the group reach consensus as to which outcomes should be measured and reported, and which definitions/instruments should be used in order to do so. The first stage of the Delphi process (three rounds of questionnaires) will focus on outcomes while the second stage (three additional rounds of questionnaires) will focus on definition/instrument selection.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this study has been received from the University of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Ethics Committee. With regard to disseminating results, a report will be submitted to our funding body, the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Department. In addition, early findings will be shared with Public Health England and Health Scotland, and results communicated via conference presentations, peer review publication and our institutions’ social media platforms.

The 22nd International Congress on Heterocyclic Chemistry (ICHC-22) was held 2-7 August 2009 in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. St. John's, the capital of Canada's youngest Province, Newfoundland and Labrador, is also Canada’s oldest and North America’s most easterly city. The Conference was chaired by Prof. Mohsen Daneshtalab (School of Pharmacy, Memorial University of Newfoundland) and was organized by the School of Pharmacy and the Chemistry Department at Memorial University of Newfoundland.Approximately 260 participants from over 30 different countries attended. The scientific program consisted of 10 plenary lectures, 19 invited lectures, 52 short communications, and 115 posters. Prof. Samuel Danishefsky (Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, Columbia University) was honored with the 2009 ISHC Senior Award in Heterocyclic Chemistry, and Prof. John Wood (Colorado State University) was the 2009 Katritzky Junior Award winner. A special symposium entitled "Focus on heterocycles in organic synthesis today and tomorrow" was held during the Congress as a tribute to Prof. Victor Snieckus (Queen's University, Kingston) for his research accomplishments and long-time contribution to the International Society of Heterocyclic Chemistry (ISHC).The five Congress themes were:- New Methods in Heterocyclic Chemistry- Biologically Active Heterocycles (Pharmaceuticals/Agrochemicals)- Heterocyclic Natural Products and their Analogues- Applications of Heterocycles in Organic Synthesis- Heterocycles in Materials ScienceBesides the collection of 9 papers that are based on the plenary and invited lectures included in this issue of Pure and Applied Chemistry, the ICHC-22 Book of Abstracts is available online and can be downloaded for free from http://www.ichc2009.ca/abstract_book.pdf in pdf format.ICHC-23 will be held in Glasgow, Scotland, 31 July to 5 August 2011 with the following five main themes of heterocyclic chemistry: synthetic methodology, natural products and complex molecule synthesis, materials, medicinal chemistry, and nanochemistry. The conference will be chaired by Prof. Colin Suckling (University of Strathclyde).The organizers are grateful to all who contributed to a successful scientific program, especially to the speakers and to our public and private sponsors: City of St. John's, Memorial University of Newfoundland, IUPAC, Thieme, Wiley-Blackwell, Elsevier, Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., ChemRoutres Corporation, and American Diagnostica, Inc.Paris E. GeorghiouConference Editor

Introduction: Understanding of how SARS-CoV-2 manifests itself in older adults was unknown at the outset of the pandemic. We undertook a retrospective observational analysis of all patients admitted to older people’s services with confirmed COVID-19 in one of the largest hospitals in Europe. We detail presenting symptoms, prognostic features and vulnerability to nosocomial spread. Methods: We retrospectively collected data for each patient with a positive SARSCoV-2 RT PCR between 18th March and the 20th April 2020 in a department of medicine for the elderly in Glasgow. Results: 222 patients were included in our analysis. Age ranged from 56 to 99 years (mean = 82) and 148 were female (67%). 119 patients had a positive swab for SARS-CoV-2 within the first 14 days of admission, only 32% of these patients presented with primarily a respiratory type illness. 103 patients (46%) tested positive after 14 days of admission – this was felt to represent likely nosocomial infection. 95 patients (43%) died by day 30 after diagnosis. Discussion: This data indicates that older people were more likely to present with non-respiratory symptoms. High clinical frailty scores, severe lymphopenia and cumulative comorbidities were associated with higher mortality rates. Several contributing factors will have led to nosocomial transmission.

BACKGROUND: Interventions which have focused on improving the physical activity of individuals with lower limb amputation can be mostly categorized into behavioural-based and prosthetic-based interventions. The aim of this review was to assess the quality of these interventions, and to identify the key gaps in research in this field. METHODOLOGY: The databases of Scopus, Pubmed, Embase, Medline and Web of Science were searched between September and December of 2019 for articles relating to physical activity, amputees and interventions. Articles were assessed quantitively based on internal validity, external validity and intervention intensity. FINDINGS: Sixteen articles (5 behavioural, 11 prosthetic) were assessed. Both approaches had comparable methodological quality and mixed efficacy for producing a significant change in physical activity outcomes. Almost all interventions used a simplistic measurement of activity as their outcome. CONCLUSIONS: There is an insufficient amount of studies to assess the overall efficacy of behavioural interventions in regard to how they impact on physical activity behaviour. However, the increase of quality of the methodology in the more recent studies could indicate that future interventions will retain similar levels of quality. Prosthetic interventions have shown no major improvement in efficacy compared to similar reviews and may need to utilise more advanced prosthetic components to attain significant changes in physical activity. Activity outcomes should expand into more complex activity measurements to properly understand the physical activity profile of people with lower limb amputation. Layman’s Abstract: The purpose of this review was to identify original research which tried to improve the physical activity behaviours of individuals with lower extremity amputation. Through multiple databases, the review article identified a mixture of 5 behavioural and 11 prosthetic-based interventions which aligned with the search criteria of the review. The behavioural-based interventions used behavioural change techniques controlled by healthcare professionals to try and promote a change in physical activity behaviours. The prosthetic-based interventions employed a prosthetic component, with the intention being that if the prosthetic component had superior design, the individual would feel more encouraged to be physically active. This review article concludes that, prosthetic interventions do not appear to have a consistent significant impact on the physical activity behaviours, and though behavioural interventions also had mixed efficacy, there were not enough interventions of their design to make a conclusive statement. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/33931/26330 How To Cite: Jamieson A.G., Murray L., Buis A. The use of physical activity outcomes in rehabilitation interventions for lower limb amputees: A systematic review. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2020;Volume3, Issue1, No.2. https://doi.org/ 10.33137/cpoj.v3i1.33931 Corresponding Author: Dr. Arjan Buis,Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Wolfson Centre, 106 Rottenrow, Glasgow, G4 0NW, Scotland, UK.E-Mail: arjan.buis@strath.ac.ukORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3947-293X

Refereed publications (also known as peer-reviewed) are the currency of academia, yet many PhD theses in Australia result in only one or two such papers. Typically, a doctoral thesis requires the candidate to present (and pass) a public Confirmation Seminar, around nine to twelve months into candidacy, in which a panel of the candidate’s supervisors and invited experts adjudicate upon whether the work is likely to continue and ultimately succeed in the goal of a coherent and original contribution to knowledge. A Final Seminar, also public and sometimes involving the traditional viva voce or oral defence of the thesis, is presented two or three months before approval is given to send the 80,000 to 100,000 word tome off for external examination. And that soul-destroying or elation-releasing examiner’s verdict can be many months in the delivery: a limbo-like period during which the candidate’s status as a student is ended and her or his receipt of any scholarship or funding guerdon is terminated with perfunctory speed. This is the only time most students spend seriously writing up their research for publication although, naturally, many are more involved in job hunting as they pin their hopes on passing the thesis examination.There is, however, a slightly more palatable alternative to this nail-biting process of the traditional PhD, and that is the PhD by Published Papers (also known as PhD by Publications or PhD by Published Works). The form of my own soon-to-be-submitted thesis, it permits the submission for examination of a collection of papers that have been refereed and accepted (or are in the process of being refereed) for publication in academic journals or books. Apart from the obvious benefits in getting published early in one’s (hopefully) burgeoning academic career, it also takes away a lot of the stress come final submission time. After all, I try to assure myself, the thesis examiners can’t really discredit the process of double-blind, peer-review the bulk of the thesis has already undergone: their job is to examine how well I’ve unified the papers into a cohesive thesis … right? But perhaps they should at least be wary, because, unfortunately, the requirements for this kind of PhD vary considerably from institution to institution and there have been some cases where the submitted work is of questionable quality compared to that produced by graduates from more demanding universities. Hence, this paper argues that in my subject area of interest—film and television studies—there is a huge range in the set requirements for doctorates, from universities that award the degree to film artists for prior published work that has undergone little or no academic scrutiny and has involved little or no on-campus participation to at least three Australian universities that require candidates be enrolled for a minimum period of full-time study and only submit scholarly work generated and published (or submitted for publication) during candidature. I would also suggest that uncertainty about where a graduate’s work rests on this continuum risks confusing a hard-won PhD by Published Papers with the sometimes risible honorary doctorate. Let’s begin by dredging the depths of those murky, quasi-academic waters to examine the occasionally less-than-salubrious honorary doctorate. The conferring of this degree is generally a recognition of an individual’s body of (usually published) work but is often conferred for contributions to knowledge or society in general that are not even remotely academic. The honorary doctorate does not usually carry with it the right to use the title “Dr” (although many self-aggrandising recipients in the non-academic world flout this unwritten code of conduct, and, indeed, Monash University’s Monash Magazine had no hesitation in describing its 2008 recipient, musician, screenwriter, and art-school-dropout Nick Cave, as “Dr Cave” (O’Loughlin)). Some shady universities even offer such degrees for sale or ‘donation’ and thus do great damage to that institution’s credibility as well as to the credibility of the degree itself. Such overseas “diploma mills”—including Ashwood University, Belford University, Glendale University and Suffield University—are identified by their advertising of “Life Experience Degrees,” for which a curriculum vitae outlining the prospective graduand’s oeuvre is accepted on face value as long as their credit cards are not rejected. An aspiring screen auteur simply specifies film and television as their major and before you can shout “Cut!” there’s a degree in the mail. Most of these pseudo-universities are not based in Australia but are perfectly happy to confer their ‘titles’ to any well-heeled, vanity-driven Australians capable of completing the online form. Nevertheless, many academics fear a similarly disreputable marketplace might develop here, and Norfolk Island-based Greenwich University presents a particularly illuminating example. Previously empowered by an Act of Parliament consented to by Senator Ian Macdonald, the then Minister for Territories, this “university” had the legal right to confer honorary degrees from 1998. The Act was eventually overridden by legislation passed in 2002, after a concerted effort by the Australian Universities Quality Agency Ltd. and the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee to force the accreditation requirements of the Australian Qualifications Framework upon the institution in question, thus preventing it from making degrees available for purchase over the Internet. Greenwich University did not seek re-approval and soon relocated to its original home of Hawaii (Brown). But even real universities flounder in similarly muddy waters when, unsolicited, they make dubious decisions to grant degrees to individuals they hold in high esteem. Although meaning well by not courting pecuniary gain, they nevertheless invite criticism over their choice of recipient for their honoris causa, despite the decision usually only being reached after a process of debate and discussion by university committees. Often people are rewarded, it seems, as much for their fame as for their achievements or publications. One such example of a celebrity who has had his onscreen renown recognised by an honorary doctorate is film and television actor/comedian Billy Connolly who was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Letters by The University of Glasgow in 2006, prompting Stuart Jeffries to complain that “something has gone terribly wrong in British academia” (Jeffries). Eileen McNamara also bemoans the levels to which some institutions will sink to in search of media attention and exposure, when she writes of St Andrews University in Scotland conferring an honorary doctorate to film actor and producer, Michael Douglas: “What was designed to acknowledge intellectual achievement has devolved into a publicity grab with universities competing for celebrity honorees” (McNamara). Fame as an actor (and the list gets even weirder when the scope of enquiry is widened beyond the field of film and television), seems to be an achievement worth recognising with an honorary doctorate, according to some universities, and this kind of discredit is best avoided by Australian institutions of higher learning if they are to maintain credibility. Certainly, universities down under would do well to follow elsewhere than in the footprints of Long Island University’s Southampton College. Perhaps the height of academic prostitution of parchments for the attention of mass media occurred when in 1996 this US school bestowed an Honorary Doctorate of Amphibious Letters upon that mop-like puppet of film and television fame known as the “muppet,” Kermit the Frog. Indeed, this polystyrene and cloth creation with an anonymous hand operating its mouth had its acceptance speech duly published (see “Kermit’s Acceptance Speech”) and the Long Island University’s Southampton College received much valuable press. After all, any publicity is good publicity. Or perhaps this furry frog’s honorary degree was a cynical stunt meant to highlight the ridiculousness of the practice? In 1986 a similar example, much closer to my own home, occurred when in anticipation and condemnation of the conferral of an honorary doctorate upon Prince Philip by Monash University in Melbourne, the “Members of the Monash Association of Students had earlier given a 21-month-old Chihuahua an honorary science degree” (Jeffries), effectively suggesting that the honorary doctorate is, in fact, a dog of a degree. On a more serious note, there have been honorary doctorates conferred upon far more worthy recipients in the field of film and television by some Australian universities. Indigenous film-maker Tracey Moffatt was awarded an honorary doctorate by Griffith University in November of 2004. Moffatt was a graduate of the Griffith University’s film school and had an excellent body of work including the films Night Cries: A Rural Tragedy (1990) and beDevil (1993). Acclaimed playwright and screenwriter David Williamson was presented with an Honorary Doctorate of Letters by The University of Queensland in December of 2004. His work had previously picked up four Australian Film Institute awards for best screenplay. An Honorary Doctorate of Visual and Performing Arts was given to film director Fred Schepisi AO by The University of Melbourne in May of 2006. His films had also been earlier recognised with Australian Film Institute awards as well as the Golden Globe Best Miniseries or Television Movie award for Empire Falls in 2006. Director George Miller was crowned with an Honorary Doctorate in Film from the Australian Film, Television, and Radio School in April 2007, although he already had a medical doctor’s testamur on his wall. In May of this year, filmmaker George Gittoes, a fine arts dropout from The University of Sydney, received an honorary doctorate by The University of New South Wales. His documentaries, Soundtrack to War (2005) and Rampage (2006), screened at the Sydney and Berlin film festivals, and he has been employed by the Australian Government as an official war artist. Interestingly, the high quality screen work recognised by these Australian universities may have earned the recipients ‘real’ PhDs had they sought the qualification. Many of these film artists could have just as easily submitted their work for the degree of PhD by Published Papers at several universities that accept prior work in lieu of an original exegesis, and where a film is equated with a book or journal article. But such universities still invite comparisons of their PhDs by Published Papers with honorary doctorates due to rather too-easy-to-meet criteria. The privately funded Bond University, for example, recommends a minimum full-time enrolment of just three months and certainly seems more lax in its regulations than other Antipodean institution: a healthy curriculum vitae and payment of the prescribed fee (currently AUD$24,500 per annum) are the only requirements. Restricting my enquiries once again to the field of my own research, film and television, I note that Dr. Ingo Petzke achieved his 2004 PhD by Published Works based upon films produced in Germany well before enrolling at Bond, contextualized within a discussion of the history of avant-garde film-making in that country. Might not a cynic enquire as to how this PhD significantly differs from an honorary doctorate? Although Petzke undoubtedly paid his fees and met all of Bond’s requirements for his thesis entitled Slow Motion: Thirty Years in Film, one cannot criticise that cynic for wondering if Petzke’s films are indeed equivalent to a collection of refereed papers. It should be noted that Bond is not alone when it comes to awarding candidates the PhD by Published Papers for work published or screened in the distant past. Although yet to grant it in the area of film or television, Swinburne University of Technology (SUT) is an institution that distinctly specifies its PhD by Publications is to be awarded for “research which has been carried out prior to admission to candidature” (8). Similarly, the Griffith Law School states: “The PhD (by publications) is awarded to established researchers who have an international reputation based on already published works” (1). It appears that Bond is no solitary voice in the academic wilderness, for SUT and the Griffith Law School also apparently consider the usual milestones of Confirmation and Final Seminars to be unnecessary if the so-called candidate is already well published. Like Bond, Griffith University (GU) is prepared to consider a collection of films to be equivalent to a number of refereed papers. Dr Ian Lang’s 2002 PhD (by Publication) thesis entitled Conditional Truths: Remapping Paths To Documentary ‘Independence’ contains not refereed, scholarly articles but the following videos: Wheels Across the Himalaya (1981); Yallambee, People of Hope (1986); This Is What I Call Living (1988); The Art of Place: Hanoi Brisbane Art Exchange (1995); and Millennium Shift: The Search for New World Art (1997). While this is a most impressive body of work, and is well unified by appropriate discussion within the thesis, the cynic who raised eyebrows at Petzke’s thesis might also be questioning this thesis: Dr Lang’s videos all preceded enrolment at GU and none have been refereed or acknowledged with major prizes. Certainly, the act of releasing a film for distribution has much in common with book publishing, but should these videos be considered to be on a par with academic papers published in, say, the prestigious and demanding journal Screen? While recognition at awards ceremonies might arguably correlate with peer review there is still the question as to how scholarly a film actually is. Of course, documentary films such as those in Lang’s thesis can be shown to be addressing gaps in the literature, as is the expectation of any research paper, but the onus remains on the author/film-maker to demonstrate this via a detailed contextual review and a well-written, erudite argument that unifies the works into a cohesive thesis. This Lang has done, to the extent that suspicious cynic might wonder why he chose not to present his work for a standard PhD award. Another issue unaddressed by most institutions is the possibility that the publications have been self-refereed or refereed by the candidate’s editorial colleagues in a case wherein the papers appear in a book the candidate has edited or co-edited. Dr Gillian Swanson’s 2004 GU thesis Towards a Cultural History of Private Life: Sexual Character, Consuming Practices and Cultural Knowledge, which addresses amongst many other cultural artefacts the film Lawrence of Arabia (David Lean 1962), has nine publications: five of which come from two books she co-edited, Nationalising Femininity: Culture, Sexuality and Cinema in Britain in World War Two, (Gledhill and Swanson 1996) and Deciphering Culture: Ordinary Curiosities and Subjective Narratives (Crisp et al 2000). While few would dispute the quality of Swanson’s work, the persistent cynic might wonder if these five papers really qualify as refereed publications. The tacit understanding of a refereed publication is that it is blind reviewed i.e. the contributor’s name is removed from the document. Such a system is used to prevent bias and favouritism but this level of anonymity might be absent when the contributor to a book is also one of the book’s editors. Of course, Dr Swanson probably took great care to distance herself from the refereeing process undertaken by her co-editors, but without an inbuilt check, allegations of cronyism from unfriendly cynics may well result. A related factor in making comparisons of different university’s PhDs by Published Papers is the requirements different universities have about the standard of the journal the paper is published in. It used to be a simple matter in Australia: the government’s Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) held a Register of Refereed Journals. If your benefactor in disseminating your work was on the list, your publications were of near-unquestionable quality. Not any more: DEST will no longer accept nominations for listing on the Register and will not undertake to rule on whether a particular journal article meets the HERDC [Higher Education Research Data Collection] requirements for inclusion in publication counts. HEPs [Higher Education Providers] have always had the discretion to determine if a publication produced in a journal meets the requirements for inclusion in the HERDC regardless of whether or not the journal was included on the Register of Refereed Journals. As stated in the HERDC specifications, the Register is not an exhaustive list of all journals which satisfy the peer-review requirements (DEST). The last listing for the DEST Register of Refereed Journals was the 3rd of February 2006, making way for a new tiered list of academic journals, which is currently under review in the Australian tertiary education sector (see discussion of this development in the Redden and Mitchell articles in this issue). In the interim, some university faculties created their own rankings of journals, but not the Faculty of Creative Industries at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) where I am studying for my PhD by Published Papers. Although QUT does not have a list of ranked journals for a candidate to submit papers to, it is otherwise quite strict in its requirements. The QUT University Regulations state, “Papers submitted as a PhD thesis must be closely related in terms of subject matter and form a cohesive research narrative” (QUT PhD regulation 14.1.2). Thus there is the requirement at QUT that apart from the usual introduction, methodology and literature review, an argument must be made as to how the papers present a sustained research project via “an overarching discussion of the main features linking the publications” (14.2.12). It is also therein stated that it should be an “account of research progress linking the research papers” (4.2.6). In other words, a unifying essay must make an argument for consideration of the sometimes diversely published papers as a cohesive body of work, undertaken in a deliberate journey of research. In my own case, an aural auteur analysis of sound in the films of Rolf de Heer, I argue that my published papers (eight in total) represent a journey from genre analysis (one paper) to standard auteur analysis (three papers) to an argument that sound should be considered in auteur analysis (one paper) to the major innovation of the thesis, aural auteur analysis (three papers). It should also be noted that unlike Bond, GU or SUT, the QUT regulations for the standard PhD still apply: a Confirmation Seminar, Final Seminar and a minimum two years of full-time enrolment (with a minimum of three months residency in Brisbane) are all compulsory. Such milestones and sine qua non ensure the candidate’s academic progress and intellectual development such that she or he is able to confidently engage in meaningful quodlibets regarding the thesis’s topic. Another interesting and significant feature of the QUT guidelines for this type of degree is the edict that papers submitted must be “published, accepted or submitted during the period of candidature” (14.1.1). Similarly, the University of Canberra (UC) states “The articles or other published material must be prepared during the period of candidature” (10). Likewise, Edith Cowan University (ECU) will confer its PhD by Publications to those candidates whose thesis consists of “only papers published in refereed scholarly media during the period of enrolment” (2). In other words, one cannot simply front up to ECU, QUT, or UC with a résumé of articles or films published over a lifetime of writing or film-making and ask for a PhD by Published Papers. Publications of the candidate prepared prior to commencement of candidature are simply not acceptable at these institutions and such PhDs by Published Papers from QUT, UC and ECU are entirely different to those offered by Bond, GU and SUT. Furthermore, without a requirement for a substantial period of enrolment and residency, recipients of PhDs by Published Papers from Bond, GU, or SUT are unlikely to have participated significantly in the research environment of their relevant faculty and peers. Such newly minted doctors may be as unfamiliar with the campus and its research activities as the recipient of an honorary doctorate usually is, as he or she poses for the media’s cameras en route to the glamorous awards ceremony. Much of my argument in this paper is built upon the assumption that the process of refereeing a paper (or for that matter, a film) guarantees a high level of academic rigour, but I confess that this premise is patently naïve, if not actually flawed. Refereeing can result in the rejection of new ideas that conflict with the established opinions of the referees. Interdisciplinary collaboration can be impeded and the lack of referee’s accountability is a potential problem, too. It can also be no less nail-biting a process than the examination of a finished thesis, given that some journals take over a year to complete the refereeing process, and some journal’s editorial committees have recognised this shortcoming. Despite being a mainstay of its editorial approach since 1869, the prestigious science journal, Nature, which only publishes about 7% of its submissions, has led the way with regard to varying the procedure of refereeing, implementing in 2006 a four-month trial period of ‘Open Peer Review’. Their website states, Authors could choose to have their submissions posted on a preprint server for open comments, in parallel with the conventional peer review process. Anyone in the field could then post comments, provided they were prepared to identify themselves. Once the usual confidential peer review process is complete, the public ‘open peer review’ process was closed and the editors made their decision about publication with the help of all reports and comments (Campbell). Unfortunately, the experiment was unpopular with both authors and online peer reviewers. What the Nature experiment does demonstrate, however, is that the traditional process of blind refereeing is not yet perfected and can possibly evolve into something less problematic in the future. Until then, refereeing continues to be the best system there is for applying structured academic scrutiny to submitted papers. With the reforms of the higher education sector, including forced mergers of universities and colleges of advanced education and the re-introduction of university fees (carried out under the aegis of John Dawkins, Minister for Employment, Education and Training from 1987 to 1991), and the subsequent rationing of monies according to research dividends (calculated according to numbers of research degree conferrals and publications), there has been a veritable explosion in the number of institutions offering PhDs in Australia. But the general public may not always be capable of differentiating between legitimately accredited programs and diploma mills, given that the requirements for the first differ substantially. From relatively easily obtainable PhDs by Published Papers at Bond, GU and SUT to more rigorous requirements at ECU, QUT and UC, there is undoubtedly a huge range in the demands of degrees that recognise a candidate’s published body of work. The cynical reader may assume that with this paper I am simply trying to shore up my own forthcoming graduation with a PhD by Published papers from potential criticisms that it is on par with a ‘purchased’ doctorate. Perhaps they are right, for this is a new degree in QUT’s Creative Industries faculty and has only been awarded to one other candidate (Dr Marcus Foth for his 2006 thesis entitled Towards a Design Methodology to Support Social Networks of Residents in Inner-City Apartment Buildings). But I believe QUT is setting a benchmark, along with ECU and UC, to which other universities should aspire. In conclusion, I believe further efforts should be undertaken to heighten the differences in status between PhDs by Published Papers generated during enrolment, PhDs by Published Papers generated before enrolment and honorary doctorates awarded for non-academic published work. Failure to do so courts cynical comparison of all PhD by Published Papers with unearnt doctorates bought from Internet shysters. References Brown, George. “Protecting Australia’s Higher Education System: A Proactive Versus Reactive Approach in Review (1999–2004).” Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum 2004. Australian Universities Quality Agency, 2004. 11 June 2008 ‹http://www.auqa.edu.au/auqf/2004/program/papers/Brown.pdf>. Campbell, Philip. “Nature Peer Review Trial and Debate.” Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science. December 2006. 11 June 2008 ‹http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/> Crisp, Jane, Kay Ferres, and Gillian Swanson, eds. Deciphering Culture: Ordinary Curiosities and Subjective Narratives. London: Routledge, 2000. Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). “Closed—Register of Refereed Journals.” Higher Education Research Data Collection, 2008. 11 June 2008 ‹http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/online_forms_services/ higher_education_research_data_ collection.htm>. Edith Cowan University. “Policy Content.” Postgraduate Research: Thesis by Publication, 2003. 11 June 2008 ‹http://www.ecu.edu.au/GPPS/policies_db/tmp/ac063.pdf>. Gledhill, Christine, and Gillian Swanson, eds. Nationalising Femininity: Culture, Sexuality and Cinema in Britain in World War Two. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1996. Griffith Law School, Griffith University. Handbook for Research Higher Degree Students. 24 March 2004. 11 June 2008 ‹http://www.griffith.edu.au/centre/slrc/pdf/rhdhandbook.pdf>. Jeffries, Stuart. “I’m a celebrity, get me an honorary degree!” The Guardian 6 July 2006. 11 June 2008 ‹http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,,1813525,00.html>. Kermit the Frog. “Kermit’s Commencement Address at Southampton Graduate Campus.” Long Island University News 19 May 1996. 11 June 2008 ‹http://www.southampton.liu.edu/news/commence/1996/kermit.htm>. McNamara, Eileen. “Honorary senselessness.” The Boston Globe 7 May 2006. ‹http://www. boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/05/07/honorary_senselessness/>. O’Loughlin, Shaunnagh. “Doctor Cave.” Monash Magazine 21 (May 2008). 13 Aug. 2008 ‹http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/monmag/issue21-2008/alumni/cave.html>. Queensland University of Technology. “Presentation of PhD Theses by Published Papers.” Queensland University of Technology Doctor of Philosophy Regulations (IF49). 12 Oct. 2007. 11 June 2008 ‹http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/Appendix/appendix09.jsp#14%20Presentation %20of%20PhD%20Theses>. Swinburne University of Technology. Research Higher Degrees and Policies. 14 Nov. 2007. 11 June 2008 ‹http://www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/registrar/ppd/docs/RHDpolicy& procedure.pdf>. University of Canberra. Higher Degrees by Research: Policy and Procedures (The Gold Book). 7.3.3.27 (a). 15 Nov. 2004. 11 June 2008 ‹http://www.canberra.edu.au/research/attachments/ goldbook/Pt207_AB20approved3220arp07.pdf>.