text:
Coaching Group #3: VULNERABILITY

Patrick Lencioni writes a book called “Getting Naked” (©2010 Jossey-Bass).  The premise of the book is that leaders are starving for honesty in business, honesty in relationships and honesty within your organization.  The title “Getting Naked” is the idea that we need to be vulnerable and show who we really are.

In the book, Lencioni shares 3 core fears that leaders have:
#1)  The Fear of Losing the Business

We are so worried about losing a client or we’re afraid the organization won’t last so we don’t do anything.  We don’t take risks, we simply live in fear.

#2)  The Fear of Being Embarrassed

We don’t want to look bad in front of others, we don’t want to make a mistake so we’re cautious in our ideas and we’re afraid to say “I don’t know how to do that!”

#3)  The Fear of Feeling Inferior

This too is rooted in ego, but in this we are afraid of losing our status or our place in society.  We don’t want to move backwards.  We don’t want to “not feel” important.

When you are involved in a Coaching Group, you need to realize that people come together with some of these same fears.   That fear will keep them from being honest, it will keep them from engaging with one another, and it will keep them from taking the conversation and applying it back to their personal life and their organization.

Here are some tips to help you create a spirit of VULNERABILITY in your coaching group:

– As the leader, be honest.  Share your failures, your struggles, your victories and your mistakes.  Don’t nurture the idea that you have it all together.  You need to be real.  We’ve all made epic mistakes.  Use them to teach and encourage.

– Build trust by listening to each other, by sharing stories and by asking questions.

– Don’t judge each other based on your mistakes.  Show grace.  Be slow to react.

– Be safe: Keep the conversation to the group and ask permission to share with others if needed, but don’t break that trust!

– Realize that it takes some people a while to open up. Don’t force them and don’t make them feel guilty.  Spend your energy building trust, and when they are ready to share honestly, they will.

While there are many benefits to a Coaching Group, one of the most important is to create a safe place for leaders to learn, share, listen and grow.

Make VULNERABILITY a part of your group!

I would like to recieve emails from Leader Mundial (Note: You can unsubscribe at any time).

%d bloggers like this:


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
Level: beginner

The present continuous is made from the present tense of the verb be and the –ing form of a verb:

I am working
You are playing
He is talking
She is living
It is eating
We are staying
They are sleeping

We use the present continuous to talk about:

  • activities at the moment of speaking:

I'm just leaving work. I'll be home in an hour.
Please be quiet. The children are sleeping.

Present continuous 1

Present continuous 2

  • future plans or arrangements:

Mary is going to a new school next term.
What are you doing next week?

Present continuous 3

Present continuous 4

Present continuous questions

We make questions by putting am, is or are in front of the subject:

Are you listening?
Are they coming to your party?
When is she going home?
What am I doing here?

Present continuous questions 1

Present continuous questions 2

Present continuous negatives

We make negatives by putting not (or n't) after am, is or are:

I'm not doing that.
You aren't listening.
(or You're not listening.)
They aren't coming to the party. (or They're not coming to the party.)
She isn't going home until Monday. (or She's not going home until Monday.)

Present continuous negatives 1

Present continuous negatives 2

Stative verbs

We do not normally use the continuous with stative verbs. Stative verbs include:

  • verbs of thinking and feeling:
(= believe)

  • verbs of the senses:
  • others:

We normally use the simple instead:

I understand you. (NOT I am understanding you.)
This cake tastes wonderful. (NOT This cake is tasting wonderful.)

Level: intermediate

We also use the present continuous to talk about:

  • something which is happening before and after a specific time:

At eight o'clock we are usually having breakfast.
When I get home the children are doing their homework.

  • something which we think is temporary:

Michael is at university. He's studying history.
I'm working in London for the next two weeks.

  • something which is new and contrasts with a previous state:

These days most people are using email instead of writing letters.
What sort of clothes are teenagers wearing nowadays?
What sort of music are they listening to?

  • something which is changing, growing or developing:

The children are growing up quickly.
The climate is changing rapidly.
Your English is improving.

  • something which happens again and again:

It's always raining in London.
They are always arguing.
George is great. He's always laughing.

Note that we normally use always with this use.

Present continuous 5

Level: advanced

We can use the present continuous to talk about the past when we are:

  • telling a story:

The other day I'm just walking down the street when suddenly this man comes up to me and asks me to lend him some money. Well, he's carrying a big stick and he looks a bit dangerous, so I'm wondering what to do …

  • summarising a book, film or play:

Harry Potter is a pupil at Hogwarts school. One day when he is playing Quidditch he sees a strange object in the sky. He wonders what is happening

Basic level

What is the diferrent the following sentenes?

My son is going to ten next month.
My son will be ten next month.

Hello Montri,
The first sentence has a small error: it should be '...is going to be ten...' (you omitted the 'be').
Generally, we use 'going to' to describe things we have reason to expect to be true, and we use 'will' to describe things that we believe will happen. In this case, both forms work perfectly well and there is no real difference between them.
You can read more about these forms on this page:
The LearnEnglish Team

I have to be in the same room as my router to get a faster speed.
I am having to be in the same room as my router to get faster speed.
are there any cases where the above sentences can be used interchangeably?

Hello sam61,
The continuous form ('am having to') is quite rare. We use it when it is important to emphasise that a certain obligation or requirement is temporary. For example:
I have to travel 10 km to get to work. [this is necessary]
I'm having to travel 10 km to get to work. [this is necessary at the moment but is not a normal state of affairs]
The simple form ('have to') can be used instead of the continuous form, though unless it has a time expression such as 'at the moment' it will not carry quite the same meaning. Of course, the context may make the temporary or permanent nature of the obligation clear.
The LearnEnglish Team

I was wondering whether I could use present simple or continuous interchangeably in the next dialogue:
"Which band is playing at the club tonight?"
'The X.'
"What time does the concert start/is the concert starting?"
In my opinion, they are both correct because they are part of an arrangement, but I need a second opinion.

Hello Marua,
Yes, both
'What time does the concert start?'
'What time is the concert starting?'
are possible here. The concert can be seen as a scheduled event or as a particular arrangement.

The LearnEnglish Team

Hi Sir
Please let me know which is correct ? 'A' is meeting 'B' after a long time after greeting or saying how are you ? Which is correct way of asking? What
do you do?/ What are you doing?

Hi Lal,

'What do you do?' is a question about a person's occupation which we generally use when meeting them for the first time.

If we are meeting someone we know or once knew then we would say one of these:

Are you still working as a journalist?

Are you still a journalist?

If we could not remember what they used to do then we could say:

What are you up to now?

What are you doing at the moment?

The LearnEnglish Team

To describe an action or event in the future, which has already been planned or prepared, can we use both case, i.e. Simple present tense and present continuous tense. For example, I will meet my boyfriend tonight. I am meeting my boyfriend tonight. I thought they are the same meaning in English, but in different tense. Can you tell me do we make sentences in English at same meaning but different tense? thanks a lot.

Hello Maimaitiyiming,

English has many ways to talk about the future and all of the following are possible:

  • I meet my boyfriend tonight.
  • I'm meeting my boyfriend tonight.
  • I will (might/may/should etc) meet my boyfriend tonight.
  • I'm going to meet my boyfriend tonight.
  • I'll be meeting my boyfriend tonight.

Which you use depends upon the context and the speaker's intention. We have several pages which explain the various forms and when they can be used:

The LearnEnglish Team

warcinfo:
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-30
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-232-173-83.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/


text:
18 April 2005

Something Different

Among their other children's shows, Elden Street does an annual show called "Something Different," which is fables and fairy tales from around the world, told by a troup of six or seven actors in a fun and high-energy style. It's theater for kids, so there's at least one chase through the theater and the house. This year's stories included "The Tiger and the Pit," "The Tortoise and the Hare," "Hansel and Gretel," and "Peter Cottontail."

7-year-old Samantha and I headed out with the necessities for the day - I had the car keys and she had her Disney Princess Ariel cell phone (which was much admired at the theater) and $10 in "mad money," provided by Stacey. She took a call on the Toll Road - from Krista, I think - and explained that "I'm going to see a play, so I can't talk right now. I'll call you *after* the play." Krista is probably still waiting for her return call.

Sam likes to sit in the front row, so we got there nice and early, which gave us time to hang out with Mary Ann and Sally, something I always enjoy. This also meant that Sam got to learn about headsets,which will serve her well when she becomes a Stage Manager. She also got introduced to Dave in the lobby (where he was avoiding vocal warm-ups) and he was informed of her Stage Management tendencies.

We took our seats at 10:42 and the first "how soon?" question happened at 10:45. We were joined in the front row by Ashley and her Mom. Sam was showing Ashley her cell phone and mad money and asked me what "mad money" was, so I explained about having enough money to get home if one gets mad at one's date, which led to a discussion among the four of us about how old is old enough to date. Sam opined that 16 is a good age. Ashley - who is nearly 5 - said that she already *has* a boyfriend. (Tragically, this relationship is doomed, as Ashley and her family are moving to Connecticut soon.)

Sam asked at about 4-minute intervals when the show was going to start. I told her that it would start after Miss Holly closed the curtains at the door and the lights went down over the audience, which happened at 11:08. So, basically, Sam and Ashley were pretty darn patient: 10:42 - 11:08 is a long time to wait for something to start. (Next time we'll remember to bring one of her books.) After the show, Dave asked Sam if they'd missed any cues and she said, "Well, you started 8 minutes late." (Okay, in the interests of full disclosure, she wasn't wearing a watch and I was, so she got that piece of info from me. At 11:08. She passed it on to Dave over an hour later. I stand by my assessment of her theater future.)

The show was just terrific. Lots of energy, lots of jokes - both good jokes and dumb jokes - for the kids and the adults, and engaging actors. I think that "Hansel and Gretel" was my favorite of the day, simply for the sight of Dave in a big, pink, fluffy skirt with matching hair thing. (And gentlemen in England now a-bed shall think themselves accursed they were not here to see Dave in the big, pink, fluffy skirt with matching hair thing.)

Director Holly was committed to cross casting, so the man in the story of the tiger in the pit was played by a woman, the tree was played by a human, etc. And in "Hansel and Gretel," the woodsman was played by a woman as were Hansel and Gretel. Vivian - the woodman's spoiled, nasty fiancee - was played by Dave in the aforemetioned BPFSWMHT. (Note: guys ~ community theater is an excellent way to meet women. Just keep in mind that you may be doing it while wearing a BPFSWMHT.)

After the show, Sam asked Holly if she could go backstage because she got a backstage tour her first time there and as a future stage manager she needs all the behind the scenes info she can get. Holly refused on the (completely legitimate) grounds that the evening shows props were making the backstage area a bit of a hazard, not to mention that Sam might be a hazard to the props... So Sam found Sally and got a tour of the booth. (Another reason to keep bringing her - I'd never been in the places she's getting toured through. Thanks, Sam!) And she got to climb down the circular staircase, too.

And then it was off to McDonalds. Sam, it seems, can navigate the mile-with-four-turns to the McDonalds after having been there twice before. Another data point for that whole Stage Manager thing. Stage Managers are filled to the brim with useful information. We split a couple of Mighty Kids meals and headed home.

The Reluctant Dragon goes up in June. I've already invited Sam.

No comments:


text:
Where will returns come from? – the constrained medium term return outlook

Oliver's Insights

Way back in the early 1980s it was pretty obvious that the medium term (five year) return potential from investing was pretty solid.  As it turns out most assets had spectacular returns in the 1980s and 1990s. This can be seen in returns for superannuation funds which averaged 14.1% in nominal terms and 9.4% in real terms between 1982 and 1999 (after taxes and fees).

Click here to read the article.


text:
Wednesday, 21 November 2007

The November 10 Lewisham '77 event at Goldsmiths

The following report of our event is extracted from an article that will appear in the CUCR magazine Street Signs in early 2008.

In November 2007, around 140 people came to an event at Goldsmiths about the Battle of Lewisham. We opened the day by screening the Rock Against Racism documentary I Shot the Sheriff.[1] Both Lewisham ’77 and the local branch of Unite Against Fascism brought exhibitions on the story of racism locally.

The first session explored different memories of 1977. Ted Parker, then an SWP organiser and now principal of Barking College, told the story of the organisation of the anti-fascist mobilisation, powerfully evoking the extraordinary passion and commitment of rank and file leftists.[2] Balwinder Rana, still an SWP activist, told the story of the routine attacks by the National Front in the 1970s in Kent and South London on Asian and leftist targets, and of the defence organised by the Asian Youth Movement and SWP. The anarchist Martin Lux contextualised the events of 1977 against a longer story of mounting conflict between fascists and anti-fascists through the 1970s. Lez Henry, formerly of Goldsmiths Sociology, described the routine harassment of black youth in the area by white adults influenced by the NF, and by the police. He also described how resistance to this was informed by mounting political consciousness, exemplified by the black history teaching black youth organised locally. John Lockwood, a teacher who was imprisoned and banned from teaching South of the river for his participation in the Battle of Lewisham, told the story of the Deptford Anti-Racist Committee (DARC) and its involvement in the planning of the August 13 demonstrations. The session was concluded by chair Malcolm Ball, who reflected on the way that the events of that day changed the lives of so many of the local people.

This session was followed by a screening of five films commissioned for Lewisham ’77. Local collaborative film-making project Deptford.TV[3] have agreed to help film and archive the Lewisham ’77 process. A number of Deptford.TV film-makers filmed the September walk, which CUCR PhD student Paulo Cardullo edited into a ten-minute film. Students from the Goldsmiths Screen Documentary MA made a number of short films with veterans of 1977.

A second session moved from commemorating the day to thinking through its contemporary significance. Paul Gilroy, formerly of CUCR and Goldsmiths Sociology, gave a powerful list of some of the things that stood out about that day in 1977 (such as the “masculinism” and “smashism” of much of the left, but also the presence of large contingents of women there as women), and some of the things that have changed today (such as the presence of guns on the streets of South London now). Les Back of Goldsmiths Sociology made a moving and thoughtful intervention, reflecting on the parasitical nature of racist ideology – which now speaks a language of “identity” co-opted from multiculturalism – and of the “nervous system” of today’s fear-driven and security-obsessed racist imaginary. Dave Landau of No One is Illegal[4] made a strong case for the relationship of far right organising and state anti-immigration laws, and made a plea for the anti-racist movement to seriously reckon with the politics of immigration. Finally, Jarman Parmar[5] of the Lewisham Anti-Racist Action Group[6], made the connection to the on-going struggle against racism locally.

The day confirmed the central principle of the Lewisham ’77 project: that there is no single correct version of history, but instead history is something to be contested and discussed. Rather than simply romanticising the events of 1977 (although it is right to see them as heroic), the event made it clear that there are a number of competing narratives into which it fits. Exemplified by a disagreement over whether the soundtrack to the event – blasted out of the window of a flat on Clifton Rise from speakers set up between pots of geraniums – was Bob Marley’s “Get Up, Stand Up” or Junior Murvin’s “Police and Thieves” – no single memory can claim a monopoly. Was the Anti-Nazi League, which arose out of the day, the culmination of a vibrant tradition of militant anti-fascism, or a diversion away from it? Which was more significant, the presence of the “white” left or of local black youth? Was the black presence in the confrontation the result of spontaneous anger at racism, or part of a conscious and sophisticated analysis of the political situation?

A second point of contention was over to what extent the Battle of Lewisham model can be imposed today. This was exemplified by the heated debate over whether calling the NF then (and particularly the BNP now) “Nazis” is an effective anti-racist strategy or whether it plays into a Little England patriotic WWII narrative. It was also exemplified by the debate over the continued relevance of the “no platform for fascists” policy and, for example, whether it should be applied to the handful of NF hands who march through Bermondsey every year.

Lewisham ’77: Into the future

Lewisham ’77 continues as a project. We intend to continue collecting memories of 1977 in all their diversity and contentiousness, and using these as part of a multimedia intervention that we can use with children and young people locally and further afield. If you want to get involved, please get in touch.

Tuesday, 6 November 2007

Lewisham '77 event this Saturday - new speakers confirmed!

The Lewisham '77 event is at Goldsmiths College, London New Cross this Saturday, from 1 pm to 5 pm in the Great Hall. Two more speakers have been confirmed: John Lockwood, who we believe was the only person imprisoned for his role in the Battle of Lewisham, and Jarman Parmar, Lewisham councillor and eyewitness to the Battle.

We will screen the Rock Against Racism documentary I Shot the Sheriff as people arrive, and there will be exhibitions and stalls. Speakers will be from 1. In the first session, speakers include Ted Parker, who organised the anti-fascist demonstration in August 1977, Balwinder Rana of the ANL, Martin Lux, author of Anti-Fascist: A Foot-Soldier's Story, Lez Henry of Nu-Beyond, and John Lockwood. There will be more film screenings from 2.30 to 3. The second session, on the contemporary significance of Lewisham '77, will be opened by Paul Gilroy, author of Black Britain: A Photographic History, and will feature Les Back of Goldsmiths, Dave Landau of No Borders, and councillor Jarman Parmar of the Lewisham Anti-Racist Action Group.

The films screening at 2.30 will be the UK premier of films specially commissioned for the event from Deptford.TV and from the Goldsmiths MA Screen Documentary students. This will include: a 10 minute film of the Lewisham '77 commemorative walk on September 13 and a series of 2 and 5 minute films made by the MA students, featuring: Red Saunders and the story of Rock Against Racism, Morgan O'Brien and the 1977 British Steel occupation, Martin Lux and the Battle of Cable St, and Amina Mangera and other veterans' memories of the day.


text:
Corporate and business law

  • Assistance with customer and supplier problems
  • Drafting and checking contracts and conditions of sale
  • Advising on the incorporation of companies
  • Advising on internal company affairs
  • Support and advice with respect to labour and employment law problems

Contract Law

  • Support and advice on residential and commercial rents
  • Assistance with declarations of unsuitability or unfitness for habitation
  • Apartments in co-ownership
  • Support and advice on contracts
  • Counsel in legal proceedings

Family Law

  • Divorce procedures and the settlement and liquidation of the joint estate
  • Advice on marriage (prenuptial) and cohabitation agreements
  • Counsel in proceedings before the Juvenile courts
  • Advising on estate planning and inheritance questions
  • Advising on post-divorce problems (maintenance contributions, child access rights)

Criminal Law and Criminal Proceedings

  • Defence counsel as of the first police interview, during pre-trial detention, and in the

         proceedings before the criminal court, as well as in the context of the sentence.

  • Assistance to victims in the follow up of the preliminary investigation to the final

         claim for compensation.

  • Defence before the traffic offences court

Contracting Law

  • Legal assistance for principals, architects and contractors in the event of dispute
  • Assistance with proceedings and court-ordered surveys

Insurance and liability law

  • Advice and assistance for insurer – insured problems
  • Advice and assistance for loss and compensation further to error or negligence

Transport Law (carriage by road)

  • Assistance for principals and carriers in the event of loss

Road Traffic Law

  • Assistance and defence when summonsed before the Traffic Court
  • Assistance for victims of traffic offences
  • Assistance with claims involving discussions about liability
  • Assistance with compensation for physical injury, invalidity, death, etc.

     Lexetera Lawyers --- Franklin Rooseveltplaats 12 2060 Antwerpen --- Tel: 03/232.36.69 Fax: 03/232.24.41 --- info@lexetera.be


WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: application/xhtml+xml

text:
"I work beside my shit. I eat beside my shit.": impressions from the dockworkers strike in Hong Kong

"I work beside my shit. I eat beside my shit.": impressions from the dockworkers strike in Hong Kong

An article by Frido Wenten based on talking with a dockworker in Hong Kong during the Spring 2013 strikes.

As the Hong Kong dockworkers strike enters its third week, around 100 workers still camp outside the gates to Hong Kong International Terminals (HIT). 400 to 500 crane operators refuse to return to work, making them a 40 to 50 per cent majority amongst the contract workers at the docks. While the port claimed daily losses of 5 million HKD – around 500,000 euros – the strike fund stood at 3.5 million HKD last Wednesday April 10. Public support from unions, Leftist groups, students and ordinary citizens is extraordinarily high, during Hong Kong's first larger labour struggle since the construction workers' strikes in 2007.

The striking workers demand a 20 per cent pay rise and improved working conditions. Salaries were slashed in the Asian Crisis and have not recovered ever since – in fact, they have fallen continuously in Hong Kong's low wage segment. There have been conflicting reports on the current wage level, but it seems that workers earn between 13,000 and 18,000 HKD a month (1250-1700 euros) – without benefits such as social security or health insurance. With living expenses and especially real estate prices in Hong Kong ranging amongst the highest in the world, workers have to struggle hard to make a living on this basis. "I can see no future in Hong Kong. Wages have not increased for ten years. If you want to have a family here, it is a heavy burden", explains Jeff Cheung, one of the striking workers. Jeff is a young worker in his late 20s – a minority amongst his colleagues, who are mostly in their mid-30s to 50s. In his twelve hour shift he un- and uploads about 150 containers. If his rate falls below 10 per hour, he will receive an angry call from his boss. His shift does not include lunch or toilet breaks. Workers have to relieve themselves in the crane cabin: "I work beside my shit. I eat beside my shit", smirks Jeff in a spirit of self-irony.

Jeff worked his first job as ground personal for a large airline at Hong Kong airport, sitting at the check-in desk. He quit after a conflict with his boss, arising because Jeff had told a rude customer, who threw his passport at his face to "go fuck himself". Taking up a job as a clerk, he also began to hate office work, feeling a lack of solidarity amongst his colleagues, who all competed for individual promotions. "Here, there are no promotions, so we are all the same. That's why we get along to well. We often go out for drinks after work" he describes working at the docks. Despite his low pay and the intense working conditions he still likes his job: "Up in the cabin I don't have a boss, you know. I just do my work. I take a Hifi up to the cabin and listen to some punk and metal. Actually, I like operating the crane, it's a bit like a computer game."

Like everyone on strike, Jeff is subcontracted by one of 5 labour agencies, between which he and his colleagues periodically change contracts. They are leased out to HIT, which is (via other sub-units) majority-controlled by Hutchison Whampoa, a large cross-sectoral conglomerate owned by Asia's richest man Li Ka-shing. Closely linked to or even part of this group are the respective labour agencies – sold, bought and resold internally, thus concealing actual ownership structures. The confusing labour relations lead to the fact that workers often do not even know that they toil for the Li Ka-Shing empire. Jeff became a crane operator a few years ago and has only learned about the actual circumstances through the strike. Hutchison on the other hand claims that there is no direct employment relation; that negotiations are thus out of the question; and that the conflict is to be handled by the labour agencies.

Jeff and his colleagues have tried multiple times to engage in negotiations with management. They elected 10 direct representatives, which form the negotiation committee, spearheaded by a union representative of the Hong Kong Dockworkers Union (HKDU). The latter however had no direct connection to the crane operators when the strike broke out, but it represented workers in other branches of the industry – and was thus also formally responsible for the crane operators. Over the course of the strike the majority of the crane operators joined the HKDU – and so did their elected representatives. The HKDU is affiliated to the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU), which leads the broader support campaign. The HKCTU seems to be a comparably progressive union, which is still relatively young and not fully bureaucratically encrusted (at least in comparison to the average European and US union). It was formed as a federation of smaller independent unions in opposition to the China-friendly, corporatist Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (HKFTU). On Wednesday April 10, management of the labour agencies negotiated with the workers and HKDU in the morning – announcing the day before that they offer a pay rise of 5 per cent – and with the FTU in the afternoon (which obviously has no legitimacy amongst the workers whatsoever). With the strike now entering its third week, negotiations have however led nowhere – either because the employer's side did not show up at the scheduled meetings or because the offers were unacceptable.

Meanwhile, the strike, the camp and the multitude of support actions go on. For the first two weeks of the strike, Jeff claims, "of 10 cranes, only 2 were working". Initially, the subcontracted workers – the minority of formal workers does not support the strike – had occupied the space inside the terminal and blocked operations. An injunction by the city government forced them out of the terminal compound and onto a small strip between the fence and the access road to the docks. Over the last weeks, supporters and journalists have flocked to the tents and gazebos, squeezing in for interviews, delivering donations or simply expressing their solidarity.

When I visited the docks the last time on Wednesday April 10, workers were still holding out but becoming less optimistic. A certain routine seems to have developed: They collect their daily 500 HKD – paid out from the strike fund, which solely depends on donations – play cards and have a chat with their colleagues, supporters and the press. But in the absence of any real progress, there seems to be a certain disillusion about the failing negotiations and the passivity of the city government. While capital and state stay motionless, a solidarity march of 4000 protesters took place on Sunday April 7, including trade unions, political parties, Leftist groups and migrant organisations – its broad coalition (driven by very different intentions) being an exceptional occurrence in Hong Kong, and arguably not only there. The demonstration stopped at Li Ka-shing's office and ended with a rally in front of the city government. A huge number of students and young people are moreover involved in organising support activities – fundraising, reports for their student papers, but also boycott actions at the Park ‘n Shop supermarket chain, which also belongs to Li Ka-shing. The composition of the student participants seems to be very diverse, some being members of Leftist groups, others seem unpoliticised but driven to participate by a vague feeling of injustice or human rights violations. Some are even urged by their teachers to go down and support the strike (e.g. students of social work).

It remains to be seen what will happen. Possible scenarios at the moment seem to be that management will give in on certain demands and withhold others, thus providing the possibility of a split amongst the strikers based on accepting or rejecting the offer. Simply waiting until the strike fund runs out and the workers' moral declines seems another option – albeit a costly and risky one. The daily losses for Hutchison are massive; and incoming containers have already been re-channelled to the port in Shenzhen. On the other hand, this scenario also recasts dark memories of the past, when increasing competition from the rapid development of the Shenzhen port since the 1980s provided the background for a massive attack on dockworkers, one of the most militant sectors of the Hong Kong working class. Open repression seems to be off the agenda for the time being, given the high degree of media attention, local and international solidarity – and the inclination of the city government to project itself as the democratic and liberal counterpart to mainland China. Finally, bringing in replacement workers would be an obvious management tactic to break the strike. Avoiding the rain under a gazebo at the strike camp, watching patrolling police at the open gates and trucks passing towards one of the few operating cranes, I am wondering why in the absence of a picket line this has not happened so far. Asking Jeff, he replies: "Because no one is willing to work under these conditions."

Originally posted: April 2013 at Gongchao

Posted By

Juan Conatz
May 11 2013 23:00

Attached files

May 12 2013 12:56

N.b. this strike ended with the unions declaring victory when they were offered a 9.8% pay increase for all workers.

no mention of working conditions in the agreement. So it's not clear how much of a victory this really is. Anyone know more?

May 12 2013 19:47

i'm not shure, how much of a victory it is, but there were changes in the working conditions in the agreements. from another article:

"A 40-day strike of more than 500 dockworkers at the Port of Hong Kong
ended yesterday with a settlement that included a 9.8 percent wage
increase, non-retaliation against strikers, and a written agreement, all
of which had been fiercely resisted by the four contractors targeted in
the strike. Strikers accepted the offer by a 90 percent vote.

The four contractors also agreed to work through the port manager Hong
Kong International Terminal (HIT) to provide meal and toilet breaks,
which had been lacking even for workers on 12- or 24-hour shifts. Crane
operators laid off during the strike will be rehired.

[...]Though members of the Union of Hong Kong Dock Workers (UHKDW) had been holding to their demand for a double-digit wage increase, they had
growing concerns about contractors’ use of scabs and the relative ease
with which shippers could reroute from Hong Kong to the nearby mainland
China port of Shenzhen. After the breakthrough accomplishment of forcing
the contractors to negotiate, and clearly winning the battle of public
opinion, strikers were ready to return to work.

The strike was notable in that dockworkers across multiple
sub-contractors first self-organized, from the bottom up, before seeking
affiliation for their union with the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade
Unions (HKCTU)."

May 13 2013 10:33

Great, thanks - looks like a significant victory in that case!

Jun 14 2013 10:02

i'm an anarchist from Hong Kong, and spent a good amount of time at the strike from the beginning...it all feels like an extended honeymoon, and it has taken a rather huge physical and emotional toll on me and my friends, not to mention the workers themselves...we're all recovering from the intensity of the events. the group that i am a part of is now in the process of preparing an evaluation of our experiences during and after the strike, and i'm not sure if i can really get into much detail here, but i can say without any reservations whatsoever that the image that the public, local and international, have of this strike is alarmingly incomplete....

this article is pretty much on-point as far as its description of the working conditions at the docks go, but i'm afraid the author has been misled about the nature of the UHKDW and the HKCTU, two bureaucratic monoliths staffed by politicos and their heir apparents which should be taken to task by anybody who believes in the ideals espoused by this website, methinks. comparing the HKCTU to english and american unions is a bit odd, because the dynamics in hong kong are rather different and the HKCTU is regarded as being aligned with the official 'Left' establishment (the pro-democratic coalition critical of Beijing), but as far as i'm concerned how 'bureaucratic' a union is doesn't solely have to do with how integrated it is into the workings of the state, but whether it encourages proletarian autonomy and self-activity rather than the 'representative' (substitutive would be a better word) hierarchies that we are so used to seeing.

if we look beyond the figures- themselves complicated by the fact that the different workgroups across different terminals have met with a variety of difficulties after the official conclusion of the strike, difficulties that they will have to resolve on their own, now that the strike is 'supposed' to be over and nobody is supposed to care about the plight of the dockworkers anymore- and focus, as libertarian communists tend to do, on what was built between groups of workers that had been separated, by the very nature of their work (shifts, technology), from their own powers of organisation and collectivity, on what transpired between the workers and the 'activists' that they had hitherto watched on tv, then we will see a very different picture...
what transformations took place? what advances in proletarian autonomy were made? what forms of experimentation were invented in response to difficulties that surfaced during the struggle? did the workers create new channels of communication and collective deliberation among themselves, rather than being at the mercy of their representatives, who had a monopoly on information and executive power? how independent were the workers allowed to be? has the strike impelled them to reflect upon the place of the worker in this society, and how he relates to the multifarious antagonisms and struggles that surround him? on the workings of class and how it materializes itself INSIDE the workers' movement itself, in hierarchies and the division of labor (the articulate and 'educated' union folk and workers' representatives being charged with charming the media and engaging in bureaucratic/legal wrangles behind closed doors)?

the answers to these questions will probably dismay anybody who has followed this strike from the outside, though it will probably not surprise anybody who has been involved in strikes of this nature before. suffice to say that the union was a lot more interested in staging an elaborate and spectacular media campaign, to which every form of self-activity was sacrificed. the workers were simply treated as suffering and mute bodies to be exhibited to the media, shock troops summoned to appear and disappear at the behest of their eloquent and media-savvy superiors. meanwhile, they did all the hard work sitting in the strike quarters through the thunderstorms and extreme heat, awaiting news from negotiations while their families worried about them at home. of course you have to sympathize with them as they wondered whether it was all worth it. in that situation, where 'union meetings' and 'workers assemblies' featured endless bureaucratic soliloquies punctuated by forced applause from those that they 'represented', we felt as bewildered and as hapless as anybody else.

it sounds grim, but what this strike provided, for the most part, was an opportunity for hierarchy to consolidate itself among the workers and for certain people to advance their own political or bureaucratic careers. the head of the dock workers' union boasted, in private, that he had been on TV more often throughout the strike than the chief executive of this city, got on the front cover of a number of magazines, a huge feature in the english-speaking newspaper, etcetera...other workers are now going to assume their new function as foremen and managers of the proletariat...general consensus among the workers that we know is that a struggle of this magnitude is not going to happen again anytime soon (there have only been three strikes in the docks' history, the second of which lasted less than 20 minutes...) when the strike concluded, a few workers struggled desperately to leave the donated funds in the workers' hands, so that they could use it to wage future struggles...some were blacklisted and dismissed, others sit and wait at home all day, passed over all for other workers on call...

for the rest, it's life as usual- their lives occupied almost exclusively by grueling, demeaning, thoroughly exhausting labor, with intermittent bouts of sleep. all of this has been happening in the dark, without the attention of the general public, who were supposed to have grown frustrated and bored with a movement that had occupied the center of their screens for far too long....the workers themselves, even the most creative and outspoken of them, became crestfallen, bitter, disenchanted, forced to stifle and reserve all of their disgruntlements to themselves...at the end of the day, nearly everybody is relieved that the strike is over, at least nobody has to maintain the pretense that they are 'winning', nobody has to invest hope in something that has reached a dead end...

of course, things aren't quite as somber as all this, there were many moments of joy throughout those weeks. for the workers, it was the first moment in a very long time where they were given the opportunity to breathe, to socialize between different terminals and workgroups, to get to know the fellows whom they had seen in the docks for the last twenty years but had never had a chance to properly talk to. it was also a marvelous experience for those of us who have passed the docks every day on the highway, without ever wondering how it all worked. never would we have imagined that we would get a chance to go in there and associate with the men who were responsible for hauling in the tobacco that we smoke and the spirits that we drink. for all of our personal and collective failures as an autonomist group in Hong Kong, we have made a number of friendships among the workers which we hope will endure in the future...

these are the things that we hope to talk about in the report that we are preparing, we hope to have it done soon, but really recollecting and reflecting on experiences of such intensity and richness is a very difficult and demanding thing...i just hope to have given you some hints of how the strike went. thanks to anybody who read this effusive response...

Monsieur Plume


text:
Pope Stephen III

Pope Stephen III
Papacy began 7 August 768
Papacy ended 1 February 772
Predecessor Paul I
Successor Adrian I
Personal details
Birth name Stephanus
Born Theme of Sicily, Byzantine Empire
Died (772-02-01)1 February 772
Rome, Papal States
Other popes named Stephen

Pope Stephen III (Latin: Stephanus III; d. 1 February 772) was the Pope from 7 August 768[1] to his death in 772.

Stephen was a Benedictine monk who worked in the Lateran Palace during the tenure of Pope Zachary. In the midst of a tumultuous contest by rival factions to name a successor to Pope Paul I, Stephen was elected with the support of the Roman officials. He summoned the Lateran Council of 769 which sought to limit the influence of the nobles in papal elections. The Council also opposed iconoclasm.

Early career and election as Pope

A Greek[2] born in Sicily, Stephen III was the son of a man named Olivus.[3] Coming to Rome during the pontificate of Pope Gregory III,[4] he was placed in the monastery of St. Chrysogonus, where he became a Benedictine monk.[3] During the pontificate of Pope Zachary, he was ordained a priest, after which the pope decided to keep him to work at the Lateran Palace. Stephen gradually rose to high office in the service of successive popes, and was at the bedside of the dying Pope Paul I as powerful factions began manoeuvring to ensure the election of their own candidate in late June 767.[3]

The next year was consumed by the rival claims of antipopes Constantine II (installed by a faction of Tuscan nobles) and Philip (the candidate of the Lombards), who were forced out of office by the efforts of Christophorus, the Primicerius of the notaries, and his son Sergius, the Treasurer of the Roman church.[5] With the capture of Constantine II, Christophorus set about organising a canonical election, and on 1 August he summoned not only the Roman clergy and army, but also the people to assemble before the Church of St. Adrian in the area of the old Comitium. Here the combined assembly elected Stephen as pope.[6] They then proceeded to the Church of Santa Cecilia in Trastevere, where they acclaimed Stephen as pope-elect, and escorted him to the Lateran Palace.[6]

At this point, supporters of the pope-elect Stephen began brutally to attack key members of Constantine’s regime, including Constantine himself, who was hounded through the streets of Rome, with heavy weights attached to his feet.[7] Bishop Theodore, Constantine’s Vice-dominus, was blinded and had his tongue cut out, while Constantine’s brother, Passivus, was also blinded.[7] After Constantine was officially dethroned on 6 August, Stephen was consecrated pope on the following day, 7 August 768.[8] Retributions continued even after the consecration of Stephen; the town of Alatri revolted in support of Constantine, and after its capture, the key members of the revolt were blinded and had their tongues ripped out.[9] Then on the orders of the papal Chartularius, Gratiosus, Constantine was removed from his monastic cell, blinded, and left on the streets of Rome with specific instructions that no-one should aid him.[10] Finally, on a charge of conspiring to kill Christophorus and many other nobles, with the intent of handing over the city to the Lombards, the priest Waldipert, who was the prime mover in the elevation of the Antipope Philip, was arrested, blinded, and soon died of his wounds.[7][11]

The role of Stephen III in these events is somewhat obscure. According to the historian Horace Mann, Stephen was an impotent observer, and that the responsible agent was in reality the Chartularius, Gratiosus.[7] However, according to Louis Marie DeCormenin, Stephen was the key person responsible for issuing the orders, and took great delight in destroying his rival and his supporters.[10] A middle position was taken by the historian Ferdinand Gregorovius, who observed that Stephen, while he may not have instigated or ordered the atrocities, did not seek to prevent them either, either through self-interest or the weakness of his position.[12] What is clear however, is that the recent creation of the Papal States had seen the traditional rivalries of the ruling families of Rome transformed into a murderous desire to control this new temporal power in Italy, dragging the papacy with it.[13]

The Lateran Council of 769 and conflict at Ravenna

With Constantine’s supporters largely dealt with, Stephen wrote to the Frankish king, Pepin the Short, notifying him of his election, and asking for a number of bishops to participate in a council he was seeking to hold to discuss the recent confusion. As Pepin had died, it was Charlemagne and Carloman I who agreed to send twelve bishops to participate in the Lateran Council of 769.[14] The council saw the final condemnation of Constantine II, who was beaten and had his tongue removed before being returned to his monastic cell. All clerical appointments made by Constantine were declared null and void. It also set about establishing strict rules for papal elections, thereby restricting the involvement of the nobility in subsequent elections. Finally, the rulings of the Council of Hieria were rejected, and the practice of devotion to icons was confirmed (see iconoclasm).[15]

In 770, Stephen was asked to confirm the election of Michael, a layperson, as Archbishop of Ravenna. However, Michael, in league with the Lombard king Desiderius, and the Duke of Rimini had imprisoned Leo, who had been elected first.[16] Stephen refused to confirm Michael’s election; citing the conventions of the Lateran council, he sent letters and envoys to Michael, demanding that he stand down.[17] Michael refused, and the stand-off continued for over a year, until the arrival of the Frankish ambassador in Ravenna along with the Papal legates encouraged Michael’s opponents to overthrow him, and send him to Rome in chains. Leo followed soon after, when Stephen consecrated him as Archbishop of Ravenna.[17]

Temporary alliance of the Franks and the Lombards

Throughout his pontificate, Stephen was apprehensive about the expansionist plans of the Lombards.[18] Placing his hope in the Franks, he attempted to mediate in the quarrels between Charlemagne and Carloman, which were only helping the Lombards' cause in Italy.[19] In 769, he helped them reconcile, and pressured them to support the still infant Papal States, by reminding them of the support which their father had given the Papacy in the past. He also begged them to intercede on his behalf by entering into discussions with the Lombards.[20]

Consequently, an embassy was sent to the Lombard king, Desiderius, in 770, which included Charlemagne’s mother, Bertrada of Laon. Their intervention achieved a result favourable to the Papacy by restoring to the pope the parts of Benevento that the popes claimed.[20] To Stephen’s consternation however, Desiderius and Bertrada entered into discussions about a possible marriage between Desiderius’ daughter, Desiderata, and one of Bertrada’s sons.[21] It is also possible that discussions took place around the marriage of Charlemagne’s sister, Gisela to Desiderius’ son, Adalgis.[22]

Stephen therefore wrote to both Charlemagne and Carloman, protesting about the proposed alliance.[23] Apart from noting that both men were already married, he reminded them of their promises to previous popes, that they would consider the pope’s enemies as their enemies, and that they had promised to Saint Peter to resist the Lombards and restore the rights of the Church.[24] He wrote:

”You who are already, by the will of God and the commands of your father, lawfully married to noble wives of your own nation, whom you are bound to cherish. And certainly it is not lawful for you to put away the wives you have and marry others, or ally yourselves in marriage with a foreign people, a thing never done by any of your ancestors.... It is wicked of you even to entertain the thought of marrying again when you are already married. You ought not to act thus, who profess to follow the law of God, and punish others to prevent men acting in this unlawful manner. Such things do the heathen. But they ought not to be done by you who are Christians, a holy people and a kingly priesthood.”[25]

His pleas fell on deaf ears, and Charlemagne married Desiderata in 770, temporarily cementing a familial alliance with the Lombards.[26]

Fall of Christophorus and Sergius

Throughout 769 and 770, Stephen continued to rely on the support and advice of Christophorus and Sergius who had placed him on the papal throne. Their antipathy towards the Lombards and general pro-Frankish stance caused King Desiderius to engineer their downfall.[27][28] He bribed the Papal Chamberlain, Paulus Afiarta, and other members of the papal court to spread rumors about them to the pope.[27] When Desiderius attempted to enter Rome in 771 with an army, claiming to be on a pilgrimage to pray at the shrine of St. Peter, Christophorus and Sergius shut the gates of the city against them. Arriving at the gates and seeing armed troops manning the walls, the Lombard king asked to speak to the Pope, who came out to him. During Stephen’s absence, Afiarta and his supporters sought to stir up a mob to overthrow Christophorus and Sergius. But the Primicerius and his son gained the upper hand, and forced Afiarta and his colleagues to flee to the Lateran Palace.[29]

By this stage, Stephen had returned to the Lateran, and he was confronted in the Basilica of St. Theodore by the fleeing Afiarta and his co-conspirators being chased by Christophorus and his supporters.[30] Apparently at this point, a suspicious Christophorus, believing that Stephen had entered into some agreement with Desiderius, forced Stephen into taking an oath that he would not turn Christophorus or his son over to the Lombards. After this, a furious Stephen berated Christophorus, demanded he stop harassing Afiarta, and ordered him and his followers to withdraw, to which Christophorus complied.[30] The next day, Stephen fled to St. Peter’s Basilica to seek the protection of Desiderius.[31] The Lombard king, shutting Stephen up in his suites in the Basilica, made it clear to the Pope that the price for his help was to be the handing over of Christophorus and Sergius.[32] The Pope sent two bishops to negotiate with Christophorus and Sergius, telling them that they must either retire to a monastery or come out to him at St. Peter’s. At the same time, a message was sent from Desiderius to the people of the city, declaring that: ”Pope Stephen bids you not to fight against your brethren, but to expel Christophorus from the city, and save it, yourselves, and your children.”[33]

This message from the Lombard king had the desired effect; Christophorus and Sergius began to suspect their associates, who in turn rapidly abandoned them. Both were reluctant to leave the city, but eventually both made their way to the Pope during the night.[34] The next day Stephen was allowed to return to the city, while Christophorus and Sergius were left in Lombard hands. Negotiations to secure their release were unsuccessful, and before the day was out, Afiarta arrived with his partisans. After discussing the situation with Desiderius, they had both men blinded. Christophorus died after three days, while Sergius was kept in a cell in the Lateran.[34]

In an attempt to forestall the potential intervention of Charlemagne, Desiderius had Stephen write a letter to the Frankish king[35] wherein he declared that Christophorus and Sergius had been involved in a plot with an envoy of Charlemagne’s brother, Carloman, to kill the Pope. Further, that Stephen had fled to Desiderius for protection, and that eventually Christophorus and Sergius were brought out against their will. While Stephen managed to save their lives, later a group of men had them blinded, but not on Stephen’s orders. He then concludes that if it wasn’t for “his most excellent son Desiderius”, he would have been in fatal danger, and that Desiderius had reached an agreement with him to restore to the Church all the lands which she had claims on that were still in Lombard hands.[36]

That such a letter was a fiction was demonstrated very soon after; when Stephen asked Desiderius to fulfil the promises he had made over the body of Saint Peter, the Lombard king responded: ”Be content that I removed Christophorus and Sergius, who were ruling you, out of your way, and ask not for rights. Besides, if I do not continue to help you, great trouble will befall you. For Carloman, king of the Franks, is the friend of Christophorus and Sergius, and will be wishful to come to Rome and seize you.”[37]

Continuing troubles and the death of Stephen

Desiderius continued to stir trouble in Italy; in 771, he managed to convince the bishops of Istria to reject the authority of the Patriarch of Grado, and to have them place themselves under the Patriarch of Aquileia, which was directly under Lombard control.[38] Stephen wrote to the rebellious bishops, suspending them and ordering them to place themselves once again under the authority of Grado, or face excommunication.[38]

After Christophorus’ fall, Paulus Afiarta continued to serve the papal court in a high capacity. During early 772, as Stephen fell ill and was soon clear that he was dying, Afiarta took advantage of this to exile a number of influential clergy and nobles from Rome, while others he put into prison.[39] Then on 24 January, eight days before Stephen’s death, Afiarta dragged the blinded Sergius from his cell in the Lateran and had him strangled.[38]

Stephen died on 24 January [40] or 1 February 772.[41] He was succeeded by Adrian I.

Local cult of Sainthood

During the Middle Ages, Stephen III was considered a Saint in his home island of Sicily. Various calendars, martyrologies, etc., such as the ancient calendar of the saints of Sicily, number Stephen among the saints, and assign his feast to 1 February. The citizens of Syracuse at one point attempted to convince the Holy See to officially endorse the sainthood of the pope, but this was not successful.[42]

See also

  1. Chisholm 1911
  2. Fentress, E. "Cosa V", p. 89. 2003
  3. 1 2 3 Mann, pg. 369
  4. DeCormenin, pg. 197
  5. Mann, pgs. 362–367
  6. 1 2 Mann, pg. 368
  7. 1 2 3 4 Mann, pg. 370
  8. Mann, pg. 371
  9. Mann, pgs. 371–372
  10. 1 2 DeCormenin, pg. 198
  11. Partner, pg. 27
  12. Gregorovius, Ferdinand, The History of Rome in the Middle Ages, Vol. II, pg. 329
  13. Duffy, Eamon, Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes (1997), pg. 72
  14. Mann, pgs. 372–373
  15. Mann, pgs. 373–375
  16. DeCormenin, pg. 199
  17. 1 2 Mann, pg. 376
  18. Mann, pgs. 376–377
  19. Mann, pgs. 377–378
  20. 1 2 Mann, pg. 378
  21. Mann, pgs. 378–379
  22. Mann, pg. 379
  23. McKitterick, Rosamond, Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity (2008), pg. 84
  24. Mann, pg. 381
  25. Mann, pg. 380
  26. Mann, pg. 382
  27. 1 2 Mann, pg. 383
  28. DeCormenin, pg. 200
  29. Mann, pgs. 383–384
  30. 1 2 Mann, pg. 384
  31. Partner, pg. 28
  32. Mann, pgs. 384–385
  33. Mann, pg. 385
  34. 1 2 Mann, pg. 386
  35. Mann, pg. 388
  36. Mann, pg. 387
  37. Mann, pg. 389
  38. 1 2 3 Mann, pg. 390
  39. Mann, pgs. 389–390
  40. "The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church – Biographical Dictionary – Cardinals documented in 761".
  41. Mann, pg. 392
  42. Mann, pg. 393

  • Partner, Peter, The Lands of St. Peter: The Papal State in the Middle Ages and the Early Renaissance (1972)
  • Mann, Horace K., The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, Vol. I: The Popes Under the Lombard Rule, Part 2, 657–795 (1903)
  • DeCormenin, Louis Marie; Gihon, James L., A Complete History of the Popes of Rome, from Saint Peter, the First Bishop to Pius the Ninth (1857)
  •  Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Stephen (Popes)". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Catholic Church titles
Preceded by
Paul I
Succeeded by
Adrian I
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.


text:
Monday, May 22, 2017

Call for Chapters - Supporting Today’s Students in the Library: Strategies for Retaining and Graduating International, Transfer, First-Generation, and Re-Entry Students

Supporting Today’s Students in the Library: Strategies for Retaining and Graduating International, Transfer, First-Generation, and Re-Entry Students
For publication with ACRL Press

Proposal submission deadline: June 5, 2017
Editors Ngoc-Yen Tran & Silke Higgins invite the submission of chapter proposals for a book on how academic libraries are addressing the unique struggles of international students, transfer or commuter students, first-generation students, and re-entry or older-adult students. Grounded in learning theories, the book will focus on strategies for retaining and graduating these student populations by exploring methods for overcoming barriers, discussing best practices for engaging students in research and information literacy topics, as well as providing a variety of services that support students beyond the classroom environment.

New and completed research and case studies are welcome, provided any new studies can be completed within the timeline explained below. Chapters based on completed research must not be previously published or simultaneously submitted elsewhere.

We are seeking proposals for two types of chapters in support of the aforementioned student populations:
  1. Research or case studies on:
    1. Who are our students
    2. What are their struggles
    3. What are their needs
  2. Research or in-depth case studies on the application of learning theories (such as Social Cognitive Learning Theory or Educational Gaming Theory). Topics might include:
    1. Best practices for instruction, outreach, and/or collection development
    2. Overcoming language barriers
    3. Overcoming barriers to access
    4. Developing meaningful relationships with peers and faculty
    5. Balancing school, work, and general life responsibilities

Submission procedure: Please submit chapter proposals of up to 500 words, a short author’s statement, a writing sample, and a list of previous publications if applicable to by June 5, 2017. If you are proposing new, uncompleted research, please provide a tentative timeline that includes a date for completion, evidence of institutional approval, if appropriate, as well as any additional dates you believe are relevant. Authors will be notified of acceptance by July 1, 2017.

If there are multiple authors for a chapter, please submit author statements for each author and at least one writing sample. However, writing samples from multiple authors may be submitted if it is felt that doing so will create a better representation of the group’s work.

Note: This initial stage requires a 500 word description, so just planning out your article now is fine. Final manuscripts of between 1500 and 5000 words will be due September 30, 2017, with drafts and edits staggered earlier throughout the year as best fits the schedules of the author(s) and editors. All chapters will undergo peer review by a subject matter expert prior to publication.

For additional information, contact the editors:
Ngoc-Yen Tran, Academic Liaison Librarian, San Jose State University,
Silke Higgins, Academic Liaison Librarian, San Jose State University,