Time Machine By Wells Essays - The Time Machine,

Time Machine By Wells Herbert George Wells was born in 1866 in Bromley, Kent, a few miles from London, the son of a house-maid and gardener. Wells died in 1946, a wealthy and famous author, having seen science fiction become a recognized literary form and having seen the world realize some of science fiction's fondest dreams and worst fears. Wells mother attempted to find him a safe occupation as a draper or chemist. Wells had a quick mind and a good memory that enabled him to pass subjects by examination and win a scholarship to the Normal School of Science, where he stayed for three years and, most importantly, was exposed to biology under the famous Thomas H. Huxley. Wells went into teaching and writing text books and articles for the magazines that were of that time. In 1894 he began to write science-fiction stories. -James Gunn Wells vision of the future, with its troglodytic Morlocks descended from the working class of his day and the pretty but helpless Eloi devolved from the leisure class, may seem antiquated political theory. It emerged out of the concern for social justice that drew Wells to the Fabian Society and inspired much of his later writing, but time has not dimmed the fascination of the situation and the horror of the imagery. The Time Machine brought these concerns into his fiction. It, too, involved the future, but a future imagined with greater realism and in greater detail than earlier stories of the future. It also introduced, for the first time in fiction, the notion of a machine for traveling in time. In this novel the Time Machine by H. G. Wells, starts with the time traveler trying to persuade his guest's the theory of the fourth dimension and even the invention. He tries to explain the fourth dimension before he shows them the time machine so they don't think of him as a magician. H. G. Wells uses details about the fourth dimension to teach the reader the theory about it to capture your attention. Also Wells character the time traveler says "Scientific people", "Know very well that time is only a kind of space". In this quote he is clearly using persuasion tactics. He tries to attack there consious by saying that, scientific people know that this is only a kind of space. He says this in hopes that they will believe what he says just because other intelligent people believe the theory. This is a very primitive but still an effective way to try to persuade people. The idea is "because many people believe it, so it must be true". The people he is trying to persuade are of 19th century thinking and well to do people and they are competitive amongst other well to do people so if other rich and intelligent people believe this fourth dimension theory so the time traveler hopes this will motivate them to learn about it. The Characters in the book Time Machine are The time traveler, Filby, the psychologist, and the provincial mayor. Later the silent man and the editor come in to play. Filby is described as "an argumentative person with red hair". He has another label that Wells puts on him; he call him the "young man". The psychologist also has another label; he is "the medical man". The time traveler is described briefly when the group of intellects head down the corridor to the laboratory. He uses "his queer broad head in silhouette." When the arrive at the machine's location it is described as "Parts were made of nickel, parts of ivory, parts had certainly been filed or sawn out of rock crystal". He probably chose these characters as witnesses because they hold higher education and people would believe them from there reputations. The psychologist would be beneficiary in convincing the other that its not a hoax because he is aware of human behavior. The provincial mayor is also an intelligent man and the people elected him so if he is to believe that this works then many people would follow him. Filby is another character but never talks about his standing in society it could be his friend because he did wink at the time traveler or maybe he is not because he disputed the time traveler's time machine in his face and behind his back. H. G. Wells uses two other characters that come to dinner to meet the time traveler. The main character comes back from the future. The medical doctor and the provincial mayor

How Women Can Navigate Male-Dominated Fields

How Women Can Navigate Male-Dominated Fields Who run the world? You know the answer. Women aren’t just phenomenal mothers, wives, daughters, sisters and friends any longer - they’re also must-have experts in the work environments that were once dominated by men. And while it’s taking some industries longer than others to catch up, it’s worth noting that progress has been made. Diverse workplaces benefit the employer, staff, and the consumer in a number of ways. Employers have access to their employees’ varied outlooks, broad backgrounds and creativity in problem solving. And as women take on challenging roles in once male-dominated niches, they’re learning how to navigate a predominantly male-influenced field. In doing so, they’re helping brands discover how to make the environment hospitable to more diverse populations and how to make products that speak to varied consumers. This is perhaps most noteworthy in career paths in the STEM sector.In tech, for example, women are chang ing their work landscape for the better. After all, women aren’t just working in tech fields. Women are also tech users. Having women in product development and marketing leads to better insights into how to attract and keep female customers. It also helps tech companies gain insights as to what products women need. â€Å"Hiring for diversity means onboarding different methods and strategies of thinking, as well as the increased capability to understand the pain points of all members of your target demographic,† write the experts at Mondo. When you have a diverse staff, you’re more able to meet the needs of new users, or better solve problems in your own organization.There is of course still a long way to go. In cybersecurity for example, women have made a huge impact but still make up only 11 percent of the workforce. The reasons for this are abundant, of course. Fewer women graduate with STEM degrees due to a number of factors, ranging from socialization to ge nder bias, to discrimination. But the problem exists in the workplace itself as well. Many women report having to endure a workplace environment that is akin to a â€Å"good ol’ boys club,† are expected to work long hours that are not conducive to raising a family, and experience derogatory and sexist comments in the workplace. â€Å"Corporate culture is often less accessible to women for very clear historical reasons: the modern workplace was built around the assumption of a nuclear family with a working father and a stay-at-home mom, and for as much as our society has changed, that model is still assumed in workplaces across America,† Liz Elting writes for Forbes. â€Å"The result is a culture that excludes all but a specific type of employee and isn’t actually good for anyone.†While it’s not up to women to single-handedly upend systems that are centuries old, there are many things women can do to make their workplaces more hospitable. So how can women best navigate their day-to-day participation in male-dominated fields?Seek out other women for supportFirst, it’s important that women seek out others in their industry and in their specific job to connect with. Part of the reasons that â€Å"boys clubs† still exist because they offer a valuable asset: solidarity. Boys clubs offer professional support, opportunities for advancement, mentorship, and so much more- all of which are worthwhile and useful to women in the workplace.While you shouldn’t sequester yourself completely, it’s highly valuable to be around like-minded women who are going through the same experiences as you are who can offer these same kinds of benefits- though it’s certainly easier said than done. â€Å"[This] requires support from the company’s female leadership such as it exists,† Elting continues. â€Å"But if you can enlist the right members of management or executive teams, you can begin structu ring your own ‘girls’ club,’ so to speak, that provides women with our own professional opportunities.†Elting elaborates by noting that while this might seem like a forced action, it’s important to remember that these boys clubs don’t exist by accident. â€Å"They are power structures that were constructed to ensure a certain kind of person rises to the top: someone who is ‘one of them.’† Therefore, it only makes sense that while these structures exist in the workplace, that women create the same opportunities for mentorship and advancement themselves.Advocate for a better work/life balanceAs Elting said, many of these male-dominated environments still operate under the assumptions that men are the primary breadwinners in their families. For women with families and work lives, this can cause a problem. In a recent survey by the career site Indeed, work-life balance was was cited by 14.4 percent of respondents as a reason th ey chose to leave their respective industries. An additional 2.3 percent noted that inadequate parental leave policies forced them to find new lines of work. Of those who already have children, 28 percent of women believe they’ve been passed up for advancements in their careers because they’re a parent with outside responsibilities. Advocating for more inclusive work policies, such as flexible scheduling, better child care services, maternity leave, and more can help groups of women keep their positions and advance in the workforce. Companies, of course, can work to create these kinds of policies on their own, and it’s been proven to work. Tech company Alibaba has a workforce made up of more than 40 percent women, and six of the company’s founders were female. In 2018, Bank of America was a winner of the AnitaB.org Top Companies for Women Technologists award. IBM has been hiring women since 1899, and they were a winner of the 2018 Catalyst Award, honoring their role in helping women advance in business.By creating cultures of diversity in their workplaces, companies, their employees, and their customers all benefit. Amplifying these diverse voices and supporting those who have previously been unheard in these industries will create bountiful opportunities for generations to come.About the Author: Jori Hamilton is a writer from the Pacific Northwest who has a particular interest in social justice, politics, education, healthcare, technology, and more. You can follow her on twitter @ HamiltonJori.

Efforts to Revive Membership in the British Trade Unions Essay

Efforts to Revive Membership in the British Trade Unions - Essay Example Any laxity on the side of the unions in the push to champion employee rights may lead to the uncalled fall and liquidation of initially successful trade union. It is worth acknowledging that British trade unions enjoyed the advantage of high membership registration immediately before 1979. However, this high historic clamour did not last long as the trade unions faced a tragic resignation and defection of their member. The main causes of the fall of the British trade unions were due to the high risk of unemployment due to the financial crisis that resulted in a high lay-off of workers (Smith 2011). In addition, the employees were defeated by the government in their push for salary increment, an incidence used by the government to institute laws allowing the employers to sack their rebellious workers at will. Furthermore, the Labour government made depriving laws in 1974 with a move to revenge against the great miners strike by adopting the Tory anti-union laws designated to cut indus trial wages. Labour government also worked hard to weaken the momentary strong shop stewards’ organization. The initial moves accomplished by the Labour government demoralized individual workers from participating in national votes thus paving way for Margret Thatcher and Tories laws insurgence to power. Upon entrance of the Conservative government into power under the umbrella of Margret Thatcher, new mechanisms were devised to reverse the defeat suffered by the employers at the hands of the trade unions. In that line, Margret started by isolating the key trade unions after which Tory anti-union laws of 1980 was adopted. Conservative government began the fight with the steel miners and the health workers in the year 1980 and then the printers in 1985 whose defeats returned to the government. In addition, there was great contest between the leaders of the various trade unions over who could lead the entire trade unions in Britain. This led to the automatic weakening of the ef forts of the entire trade unions (Smith 2011). Since 1980, British trade unions have tried to regain their former stature and power with limited success. In a move to restore the initial membership of workers into the trade unions, British trade unions have adopted practical policies that have stood to bear desirable results that in reviving the image of the trade unions. According to Budd and Mumford (2001, 2), many trade unions in the British economy have adopted family-friendly policies, which have led to the recovery of particular trade unions. The family-friendly policy entails the provision of subsidized onsite daycare to the workers on board. In addition, family-friendly practices provide free health care services to the children of the employees. Furthermore, the family-friendly services offered by the trade unions in Britain avails free meals to the onsite workers, a practice ought to increase the performances of the employees. Family friendly practices include provision of benefits that allow flexibility of the employees to tune from full time workers to balance between work and family issues. According to Budd and Mumford (2001, 3), the most critical component of benefits offered by the family-friendly policy is the leave policies.

Values Portrayed In Popular Media Research Paper

Values Portrayed In Popular Media - Research Paper Example The internet sphere is one that is witness to phenomenal growth which dynamically evolves to simplify things and complicate them almost simultaneously. Social networking on the internet has revolutionized the way people communicate and interact with their fellow beings wherein every facet of modern life is documented and reflected in the online medium via the social networks. The problem of random child molestation, pornography, stalking and even grievous crimes as murder have also found origin in the information gathered from the social networking websites. Thus this would be the best area for research that leads us to understand the current internet culture and its malignant effects with universal impact. Bard Williams credits the internet to be a culturally, racially, physically and sexually blind medium that facilitates the broadest exchange of ideas (Williams, 1999; p: 9) and yet after the euphoria over internet and its possibilities normalized the questions on values, ethics portrayed by the modern technological culture found light. The research shall take into consideration the broad aspects of development of internet sphere into a super-medium which has considerable influence in the way of shaping a modern internet culture that contributes to the value system of individuals. It narrows down the focus to contemplate on the value probabilities of networking websites and their impact on young minds who are seen as perpetrators of cyber-bullying and peer harassment.(Diem & Berson, 2010,p; 136) The paper shall emphasize on the emergence of a radical social culture via online networking which creates a paradoxical situation of degenerating social fabric while increasing the scope of interactions as a whole. Lovnik notes that internet idealism is difficult to attain as it calls for synthesis of critical micro practises and the vista of macro- sized speculative theory. (Lovnik, 2003; p5)Thus this paper

Business Management Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Business Management - Essay Example High Definition television aims to bring viewers closer to the reality when pursuing their favorite shows and the global market for these sets is priced at billions of dollars. However, the next ‘big thing’ in the television market in 3D technology which literally brings the characters on screen into the living rooms of the users. Though existing since the mid 1900s, the 3D technology had always been relegated to the realm of ‘unnecessary fads’. Attempts to popularize the technology were made in the 80s but due to ineffective marketing, devices which did not perform as well as had been hyped and an extremely extravagant pricing well above the price point of the average consumer, the trend of 3D did not catch on. It was not until the release of blockbuster movies like ‘Avatar’, beautifully rendered in eye catching 3D and boasting the best visual effects that technology could create that people finally began to see the value of 3D televisions. As the demand increased, the industry responded by producing different types of 3D devices in large sizes which would be more appealing for families (Display Bank 2010). The boom in 3D televisions has been supported by subsequent networks and shows created for this audience, featuring popular dramas, sports coverage and movies which can be enjoyed in 3D. It is obviously an added expense but one that many people are ready to pay for. The current situation and potential for growth: â€Å"The global market for 3D TVs is projected to exceed 200 million units by 2018, primarily driven by increased  consumer interest, falling prices of 3D TVs, and the introduction of 3D standards† (PRweb, 2012) The growth in the interest in 3d TVs has also been supported in turn by other forms of entertainment media and the changing preferences of the average consumer. People demand perfection from their ‘digital media entertainment’ and want it to be synchronized with their hand held d evices, all the time providing an enriching experience at par with real life. An important growth driver has been the penetration of high-bandwidth broadband services throughout households which can easily connect all their devices and provide access to specialized content on demand, and it has become possible due to successful implementation of fiber-based high-capacity broadband connections which provide greater bandwidth speeds. Devices such as smart TVS, smartphones and tablet PCs are steadily becoming a part of the modern landscape and they provide the boost in consumer interest in having the best possible displays for these. The big names in the industry, Samsung, LG, Sony, and Panasonic entered the 3D format in 2010  after analyzing the huge potential that had been created for a new market. Currently the United States is the largest regional market for shipment by volume of 3D TVs and the Asia Pacific a close second; it is also the fastest growing regional market for the pr oduct with volume from the region waxing at a CAGR of about 122% during the analysis period of a report compiled by Global Industry Analysis in 2012 for the market of 3D TVs (PRweb, 2012). Another study published in Quarterly Large Area TFT LCD Shipment Report showed that for the US in 2011 there was massive increase of 104% in the number of shipments of 3D-capable HDTV displays to meet rising demand for the technology just within the

Public Participation Planning

Public Participation Planning The purpose of this Literature Review is to establish a theoretical framework for my research proposal, specifically the theoretical aspects associated with public participation and collaborative planning. It aims to analyse and assess the various articles books and journals published and researched to date, while also identifying potential gaps in the research, which could be addressed by my research proposal. The literature review will take the form of an assessment of the emergence of public participation, the different types of participation and decision making models, followed by an analysis of the merits of collaborative planning as a tool for facilitating public participation within a development plan process. 2.2What is meant by participation? Although the merits of public participation have only begun to gain credence in recent times, the idea itself has been around for quite a while and literature on the subject can be found spanning back a number of decades. Public Participation has been defined as citizen involvement in making service delivery and management decisions (Langton, 1978). More recently it has been defined as ‘the process through which stakeholders influence and share control over priority setting, policy-making, resource allocations and access to public goods and services (Kende-Robb, 2005). Sanoff argues that it is advocated to reduce citizen cynicism toward government, build stakeholder consensus in government and enhance administrative decision-making. There remains a strong sense that the proper objective of participation is to ensure the ‘transformation of existing development practice, and more radically, the social relations, institutional practices and capacity gaps which cause social exclusion. This was central to many of the approaches to participation over the years including the community development approach from the 1940s to 1960s; political participation in the 1960s and 1970s; alternative development from the 1970s to the 1990s; social capital from the mid 1990s to the present and participatory governance and citizen participation from the late 1990s to the present day (Hickey Mohan, 2004). Other traditional participation mechanisms include public hearings, citizen forums, community or neighbourhood meetings, citizen advisory groups, individual citizen representation and focus groups (Wang, 2001). The focus on increasing public participation and citizen involvement in policy making has only begun to have a visible effect in recent times. It has been stated that direct, active citizen involvement in policy making has not always been a goal of civilised societies (Putnam, 1995). The reason is, to some extent a result of the enlarged role in society played by government bureaucracies (Davidoff, 1965). Habermas however states that individuals should be able to freely share their views with one another in a process, which closely resembles true participatory democracy. He states that the public sphere is â€Å"a discursive arena that is home to citizen debate, deliberation, agreement and action† (Habermas, 1981). By allowing every person the same opportunity to participate in discourse, Habermas hopes to eradicate the prejudices which limit marginalized groups from fully attaining their rights in a democratic society. The difficulty with recent models of participation is that citizens are more often reacting to plans rather than proposing what they see as appropriate goals for future action. This is certainly the case in Ireland, where participation is almost always reactive in nature. However, in the last decade this has begun to change and public participation is becoming an established part of planning and policy decision-making practice (Cameron Grant-Smith, 2005). Participation Versus Consultation Even though the term ‘participation is used to describe public involvement in policy and decision making, it must be recognised that there are various levels at which a person may participate and in many cases what is referred to as public ‘participation is not in fact participation at all. In the late 1960s, Sherry Arnstein developed an 8 rung ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation with each rung corresponding to the extent of the citizens power in influencing a final outcome (Arnstein, 1969). Arnstein developed this Ladder while involved in developing processes for citizen participation in planning and renewal projects in America (see figure 1). At the bottom of the ladder are rungs 1 (Manipulation)and 2 (Therapy). Both are non participative and the aim is to cure or educate the participants. The proposed plan is deemed best and the job of participation is to achieve public support by public relations. Rungs 3 (Informing), 4 (Consultation) and 5 (Placation) demonstrate slightly higher levels of tokenistic participation, however too frequently the emphasis is on a one-way flow of information with no channel for feedback. Rung 6 (Partnership) can be described as meaningful participation, as power is in fact redistributed through negotiation between citizens and power holders. Planning and decision-making responsibilities are shared e.g. through joint committees. It is at this partnership level that the collaborative planning model aims to operate. Rungs 7 (Delegated Power) and 8 (Citizen Control) affords ‘have-not citizens the majority of decision making seats or full power and is the holy grail in terms of citizen participation. Figure 1: If participation is to be real and effective there must be dialogue between the different stakeholders and between those who have power (those at the top of the ladder) and between those who have little or no power (those at the bottom of the ladder). There must be a two way flow of information between the parties involved. However there is no dialogue in consultation which is what has traditionally been considered ‘participation in a development plan process in Ireland. The planning authority consults the public normally after a plan has been prepared by seeking feedback through public meetings and public comment. ‘Participation in Ireland essentially consists of proposal and response the planning authority proposes a plan for a community and members of the public respond through making a submission. This submission is often made without any direct contact with officials in the planning authority so in effect there is no dialogue of any form, thereby illustrating that what is refered to as ‘participation in a development plan process in Ireland is in fact consultation. However, with public participation now becoming central to National, European and International policy, as well as being an important aspect of the sustainable development discourse, such tokenistic participation is no longer adequate. The introduction of the Planning and Development Act 2000 has resulted in a requirement on planning authorities to produce their statutory plans through a process that involves greater public input at the earlier stages. They are now required to develop a somewhat more participatory approach to planning than was previously the case. The Aarhus Convention, which took place in 1998, and the 2003 Public Participation Directive which followed on from the convention, also provide members of the public with opportunities for early and effective participation on plans or programmes relating to the environment. The increase in emphasis on public participation has meant that alternative models of planning need to emerge to facilitate and respond to this increas e and the collaborative planning model is one such response. 2.4Participation in Physical Planning Decision Making There has been much debate about the most effective methods of facilitating citizen involvement in policy formulation and decision-making. A useful approach that provides a basis for analysing processes of decision-making in planning is that developed by Innes and Booher (2000) and this will be discussed first, followed by an analysis of other participatory models of decision making that have emerged in recent times. The Innes and Booher approach identifies four different models of decision making technical/bureaucratic, political influence, social movement and the collaborative model as well as identifying when and where each model works best, which ultimately depends on the levels of diversity and interdependence present (see diagram). Source: (Innes and Booher, 2000) The technical/bureaucratic model works best where there is neither diversity nor interdependence among interests. A bureaucratic system is set up to implement known policy and the technical analyst is associated with rationality and bureaucracy. Technicians and bureaucracies essentially respond to a single set of goals and decision maker, and the typical practice is one where analyses are not focussed on interdependencies. Within this model, the focus of planning is on the achievement of the most efficient mechanism for reaching easily defined and identified needs. The political influence model works best where there is a high diversity of interests, however there is normally a low interdependence of interests, as each individual is focussed on their maximising their own interest only. In this model there tends to be a political bargaining approach that seeks to get an adequate number of interests to agree to a particular course of action in order for it to work. The social movement model recognises the importance of high levels of interdependence among a coalition of interests and individuals, but which does not deal with the full diversity of interests. Collaboration therefore is seen as the model that deals best with both diversity and interdependence ‘but is typically the least-used and least-institutionalised of the four models (Innes and Booher, 2000). Both the technical/bureaucratic model and the political influence models of planning and decision making, as proposed by Innes and Booher, reflect the lower levels of participation as identified by Arnstein, with the ‘convincing nature of the technical/bureaucratic model comparing significantly with need to ‘educate and ‘cure participants on Arnsteins tokenism rungs. The technocratic approach to planning which was the dominant planning model for much of the twentieth century has been severely criticised for its failure to adequately incorporate the values and interests of stakeholders into the decision making process. This criticism of technocratic planning was fuelled by the growing protests of stakeholders over expert-formulated plans in areas such as natural resource management, environmental regulation, transportation, and urban renewal, that were clearly contrary to the interests of large segments of society (Gunton and Day 2003). Planning theory responded to t he criticism and limitations of the technocratic approach by acknowledging the role of goals and objectives identified through democratic political processes (political influence model) to set the framework in which plans were prepared (Davidoff 1965). Planners, previously experts under the technocratic umbrella were relegated to determining optimal means to achieve politically set goals within this new participatory environment. The unresolved question in this new goals-based planning theory was how the goals should be determined. The initial and somewhat vague response was that goals should be determined by citizen participation in the planning process, however it was not clear how this was to be achieved (Gunton and Day 2003). Dahl suggested that pluralism was another vehicle that would allow individual citizens to have their concerns voiced in government, a concept developed by Davidoff in the 1960s interlinked with the idea of the planner as an advocate for the under-represented (Dahl, 1989). Unlike the ‘advocacy planning that Davidoff proposes (different planners acting as advocates for different interests), most city and town planning is performed by a single planning authority which develops plans, which it feels will best serve the welfare of the whole community, not of individual interest groups (LeGates and Stout, 2000). Davidoff argues that different groups in society have different interests, which would result in fundamentally different plans if such interests were incorporated into these plans. The articulate, wealthy and powerful groups have the skills and resources to influence plans to take account of their own interests while the poor and powerless do not. Advocacy Planning introduces the idea of planners acting as advocates, articulating the needs of the poor and powerless, the same way as a lawyer represents a client (Davidoff, 1965). The problem with advocacy planning, however, is that it did not provide a framework for resolving disputes among competing interest groups and therefore cannot be seen as an adequate method for dealing with the various conflicts that are emerging in modern day planning. Dahl sees pluralism as a situation where individuals join interests groups that represent their needs and wants. These interests groups then come together to debate their competing viewpoints and create a collective public policy that should reflect the common good. The more interest groups that exist, the greater the conflict, and the greater the likelihood that decision making will reflect that common good (Dahl, 1989). However, Lowi on the other hand argues that pluralism often fails to represent the collective good, and instead represents the needs and wants of special interest groups (Lowi, 1979). Davidoffs idea of pluralism is slightly different from Dahls, in that citizens or interest groups should go one step further and produce an alternative plan to what he sees as the ‘unitary plan prepared by the planning authority, and the advocate planner can be central to the process by representing certain interest groups. A final model, often referred to as alternative dispute resolution, also emerged as a way of engaging stakeholders in the development of plans by allowing stakeholders to negotiate a consensus agreement to resolve the dispute (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). However the alternative dispute resolution does not appear to provide a satisfactory model either, as it is reactive in responding to disputes that have already arisen instead of proactive. In essence, this limits its effectiveness as a planning tool. It is evident therefore that to date, the existing models of decision making have had limited success with regard to facilitating public participation. However as our societies and communities are now becoming more diverse and less homogenous than ever before it would seem an alternative model is required to facilitate and acknowledge these changes. 2.5The Collaborative Planning Model Innes and Booher (2000) note that in situations where there is a clear interdependence between stakeholders interests and there exists a high diversity of such interests that a different model of planning and policy making is needed. This model is known as collaborative planning. It emerged as a distinct planning paradigm in the 1990s and is a logical extension of alternative dispute resolution (Gunton and Day 2003). ‘The collaborative model is about stakeholders co-evolving to a common understanding, direction and set of heuristics†¦. It is only the collaborative model that deals both with diversity and interdependence because it tries to be inclusive and to explore interdependence in the search for solutions. It does not ignore or override interests, but seeks solutions that satisfy multiple interests. For complex and controversial issues in rapidly changing and uncertain contexts issues that there is public pressure to address collaboration among stakeholders is likely to be the best approach indeed the only approach that can produce a satisfactory result. (Innes and Booher, 2000, p21) This model is a new framework for planning which proposes that spatial planning activity move from the traditional narrow, technical and procedural focus towards a communicative and collaborative model for achieving common purposes in the shared spaces of our societies (Healy, 1997). For Healy, collaborative planning seems not to be an end in itself, but a path to â€Å"co-existence in shared spaces.† Like Innes and Booher, Healy also believes that a collaborative approach can be successful only where there is a variety of stakeholders interests, because if all the interests are the same then no dialogue is required. Healys version of collaborative planning emerged after she analysed the shortcomings of conventional forms of governance and styles of planning, namely economic planning, physical development, public administration and policy analysis, advocacy planning, neo liberalism and utilitarianism. The conceptual base for collaborative planning as Healy sees it, consists of two theoretical strands, an ‘institutionalist sociology and ‘communicative dialogue. The institutionalist theory states that spatial planning processes need to be judged by the quality of the process, i.e. the way the decision is made is just as important as the actual decision. It also seeks to identify and analyze forms and relations of power between people, beyond that of class and categories. The communicative approach offers a way forward in the design of governance processes for a ‘shared world and takes an ethical commitment to enabling all stakeholders have a voice. It deals with the design of governance systems and practices, focusing on ways of fostering collaborative, consensus building processes. This approach outlines a number of necessary components for a collaborative model to be successful. Consensus building practices are important, as they help to ensure that no stakeholder finds a particular outcome intolerable. It is important that an individuals position at the top of the ladder is not maximized at the expense of the individual at the bottom; there should be equality. It recognizes three forms of reasoning instrumental/technical (the mechanisms for public decision making), moral and emotive/aesthetic. It argues that there has been a predominance of the first, at the expense of the other two. Within the public sphere, moral and emotive reasoning must be afforded an equivalent status, to achieve balance. There is also a need for recognition of the growing cultural differences that there now is. She also points out that polices and processes need to be designed to relate to the experience of globalization and multi-cultural societies, as older planning practices do not take these into account. Leadership is not about bringing stakeholders around to a particular planning content but in getting people to agree and ensuring that, whatever the position of the participants within the socio-economic hierarchy, no groups interests will dominate (Healy, 1997) Another approach to collaborative planning is that which emerges from the work of John Forester, an American planning theorist, who focuses on the communicative role of the planning analyst. His view is that planners within organizations do not work instrumentally towards the achievement of clearly distinguishable ends. Instead he sees the role of the planner to: ‘†¦work instead toward the correction of needless distortions, some systematic and some not, which disable, mystify, distract and mislead others: to work towards a political democratization of daily communications. (Forester, 1989, p.21) Forester also states that: ‘†¦problems will be solved not only by technical experts, but also by pooling expertise and non-professional contributions too; not just by formal procedure but by informal consultation and involvement; not mainly through formally rational management procedures, but through internal and external politics and the development of a working consensus; not by solving an engineering equation but by complimenting technical performance with political sophistication, support building, and liaison work (p. 152) Forester therefore recognizes the communication and negotiating elements of planning, as well as its technical elements. He also recognizes the political nature of planning and the extent to which the planner is engaged in value laden political action. 2.6Strengths and Weaknesses of Collaborative Planning Advocates of collaborative planning cite many advantages of the collaborative model relative to other models of planning. Firstly, the chances of reaching a decision on a plan are a lot higher, because stakeholders are incorporated in the process from the outset to help reach a solution, rather than remaining as critics outside the process (Gunton and Day 2003, Susskind et al. 2000). Secondly the dynamic interaction of the stakeholders is likely to produce a plan that is in the public interest as more alternatives are generated and the consensus decision rule ensures that the mutual interests of all parties are at least partially catered for in the plan (Frame et al, 2004). Thirdly, the plan produced at the end of the process has a greater chance of being implemented, because stakeholders who might otherwise attempt to block the implementation have developed the plan and will help implement it because they have a stake in the outcome. Finally, collaborative planning helps to create à ¢â‚¬Ëœsocial capital among the stakeholders, improving their skills, knowledge and stakeholder relationships which last beyond the process of creating a plan (Gunton and Day, 2003). However, the collaborative planning model also has its critics and a number of weaknesses and challenges to the approach have been identified. Firstly, collaborative planning is founded on the principle of stakeholders negotiating with one another to agree on an outcome. In some cases, more influential and powerful stakeholders will avoid or undermine the process by using delaying tactics, or pursuing alternative means to achieve their objectives if they do not like the outcome of collaboration (Frame et al, 2003). Secondly, the need to achieve consensus may encourage stakeholders to seek second best or vague solutions when they cannot reach the best possible agreement (Gunton and Day, 2003). Cooper and Mckenna (2006) and Fainstein (2000) also state that the need to achieve consensus has meant that participatory exercises often concentrate on issues where agreement is more likely to be achieved and avoids those which are likely to cause difficulties. Thirdly, the time and resources r equired to organise a process around large group of diverse stakeholders is quite substantial. This is compounded by the potential lack of support or interest from planning officials who are unwilling to delegate the decision-making responsibilities to outside stakeholders (Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000, Fainstein, 2000). Also, established statutory fora comprising of local elected representatives are relatively neglected, while project staff must spend huge amounts of time, energy and money organising and servicing local public meetings, stakeholder meetings, public surveys and follow up consultation exercises. This often leads to a situation where projects become characterised by ‘consultation paralysis, a condition where nothing can be done because yet someone else must be consulted or re-consulted (Cooper and McKenna, 2006). Finally, relying on stakeholders that have little or no specialised training may lead to the exclusion of important scientific information in the decisi on making process, thus resulting in poor decisions being made. Fainstein (2000) also cites what she sees as a number of other weaknesses with the collaborative planning approach including: Action/implementation is often a problem, because parties in the process are not honest about their intentions and purposes It ignores the role of the powerful and their capacity to impede the implementation of agreed actions The process is usually too drawn out and resource hungry If the planner/expert acts as facilitator only, new and creative thinking can be stifled and only those that are incrementalist in nature will emerge There is evidence that experts acting on their own often come up with better solutions than stakeholders operating in a collaborative process It is evident from the above that collaborative planning approaches have many strengths and weaknesses, however it would appear that the potential benefits to the community from using such an approach outweigh potential negatives. COLLABORATIVE PLANNING IN IRELAND In the past number of years, there have been many attempts to develop models for community development and planning that aim to achieve higher levels of participation than previous models. Such models include the ADOPT model, the Bantry Bay Charter and Integrated Area Planning (IAP) to name but a few, while the Village Design Statement (VDS) could also be considered as an attempt at achieving higher levels of participation through a more collaborative approach. The ADOPT model, which was pioneered by Ballyhoura Development Ltd, is aimed at providing local area-based communities with a framework for participation in community development at a local level. The model also aims to tackle the lack of co-operation within the community sector, and weak research and planning by communities who are participating and contributing to local planning and development activities. It seeks to develop a strong community representative structure, an umbrella group that brings together representatives of the various bodies and groups within the community to ensure that activities are not being duplicated and that real needs are being addressed. This umbrella structure, along with the training and capacity building that the model promotes, supports communities and their representatives to play a meaningful role in partnership functions with Stage agencies and other bodies (Pobal, 2003). The Bantry Bay Charter was a project initiated by Cork County Council with the main objective being to develop a model and strategy for successful coastal zone management. By developing a stakeholders charter it was possible to develop an agreed approach to the management and development of the Bantry Bay area. In doing so, the process brought together the different stakeholders and interest groups of the area, as well as the agencies involved in regulating and developing the area. The Charter is based on the understanding that the regulatory agencies need to work in partnership with the local community for the successful management and development of the area. It explored the use of consensus, where all those who are stakeholders work together, to develop a single agreed approach to its development. Similar to these models is a model of collaborative planning developed by Tipperary Institute (TI), a third level education institution specialising in the area of Sustainable Rural Development called Integrated Area Planning. Integrated Area Planning is a concept that first emerged through the 1999 Urban Renewal Scheme, introduced by the Irish Government and which involved a more targeted approach to the award of urban renewal incentives. This model is multi-focused and is based on the premise that development of an area should emerge from a broadly based not take place in isolation but should emerge from a broadly based Integrated Area Plan (IAP), taking into account the social, environmental, economic and cultural needs of a community. Integrated Area Planning has been defined by TI as an empowering, practical and participatory process to collect, analyse, and compile information while developing the skills and structures needed to prepare and implement an inclusive and multifacet ed plan for a defined geographical area. The development of the IAP model was influenced to a great extent by planning theorist Patsy Healy and central to the model is the requirement for consensus to be reached on all issues before the process can be moved forward. The IAP model contains many key steps, which must be carried out including: Contracting Phase Pre-Development Phase Data Collection Establishment of a Steering Group Capacity Building of the Steering Group Establishment of Visions and Objectives Establishment of task groups Drafting Stage Validation Approval Implementation Using the IAP model, TI became involved in a number of community planning projects in Ireland including: Crusheen Co. Clare, Kinvara and Eyercourt Co. Galway, Ferbane Co. Offaly, Hacketstown Co. Carlow and Kilmacthomas in Co. Waterford. In each of these cases, the communities, in partnership with the relevant authorities prepared plans for their areas. Two of the key stages in the process are establishing the steering group and task groups. The steering group is elected by the community and it is contains a representative from the various different stakeholders in the process. The steering group plays an important role in the whole IAP process as they are responsible for driving the process forward. The task groups on the other hand are smaller groups, which are made up of members from the community and statutory agencies. The task groups are responsible for carrying out research on particular topics, such as the environment, infrastructure etc and they then report back their finding s to the steering group. The IAP process is quite resource demanding and generally takes over 12 months to complete. CONCLUSION It is clear from the above that the issue of participation and the models, which attempt to facilitate it, are central to the planning and environmental fields in both Ireland and abroad. Some of the collaborative planning models that have been developed in Ireland have multiple aims, one of which is to impact on the statutory Local Area Plan process and outcomes, including those implemented in Kinvara, Ferbane, Hacketstown and Kilmacthomas. However having reviewed the literature it is evident that there has been a clear lack of research focussing on the assessment of such collaborative planning models in Ireland. In order to assess the extent to which the IAP model in Kinvara was successful, an examination of the entire process is required. To this end, the examination required will entail more than just the IAP process itself, but also its impact on the LAP process as well as an assessment of the level of implementation that has taken place to date. Bibliography: Arnstein, Sherry R., (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of the Institute of American Planners, Vol. 35 (4), pp 216-24. Connick, S., Innes J., (2001) Outcomes of Collaborative Water Policy Making: Applying Complexity Thinking to Evaluation, Working Paper 2001-08 Dahl R, (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Davidoff, P, (1965) Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning, Journal of the American Institute of Planners DeSario, J. Langton S, (1987) Fainstein, S.S. (2000). ‘New directions in Planning theory, Urban Affairs Review, Vol.35, Issue 4, March, pp.451-78 Frame, Tanis M., Thomas I. Gunton, and J.C. Day. (2003). Resolving Environmental Disputes through Collaborative Planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Frame, Tanis M., Thomas I. Gunton, an

A Comparison of Nihilistic and Christian Archetypes in Beowulf and John

Grendel, Beowulf and the Relationship Between Nihilistic and Christian Archetypes The Wisdom god, Woden, went out to the king of trolls†¦and demanded to know how order might triumph over chaos. â€Å"Give me your left eye,† said the king of trolls, â€Å"and I’ll tell you.† Without hesitation, Woden gave up his left eye. â€Å"Now tell me.† The troll said, â€Å"The secret is, Watch with both eyes!† Woden’s left eye was the last sure hope of gods and men in their kingdom of light surrounded by darkness. All we have left is Thor’s hammer, which represents not brute force but art, or, counting both hammerheads, art and criticism†¦ The philosophies expressed in the Beowulf epic complement the exploration of existentialism throughout the modern work, Grendel, by John Gardner. Both works portray different perspectives of the same story, involving the same characters; Beowulf, the ancient Anglo-Saxon hero who destroys Grendel, and Grendel, the monster who terrorizes Hrothgar’s hall. Beowulf and Grendel act as archetypes that explore humanity’s perception of the world. In the Anglo-Saxon epic, Beowulf and his companions represent good, and the monsters, including Grendel, represent evil. When Beowulf kills Grendel, the world is less evil, but since Beowulf’s companions die in the struggle, the world is also less good. Ultimately, the two forces of good and evil will destroy each other, but the story maintains that God will interfere and save mankind from destruction. In Gardner’s story, the progression of society begins when mankind creates a monster and then creates a hero to fight the monster. Once the greater power of the hero had been established, once the conflict’s resolution strengthened society’s power, than a greater monster developed ... ...fact, it is the saving grace of mankind: the hope that God will save society and establish harmony and justice. The modern story takes the opposite view; it shows what happens when hope is lost, when society has nowhere to turn: it is a more pessimistic, more complicated view of humanity’s progress. [Throughout this paper, G after a character's name refers to Gardner; AS to Beowulf the poem.] Works Cited Gardner, John. Grendel , New York: Vintage Books Edition, 1989. Gardner, John. Moral Fiction. New York: Basic Books Inc, 1977. Heany, Seamus. Beowulf: A Modern Translation. New York: Farrer, Straus, and Giroux, 2000. Sources Cited Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. Monster Theory. George Washington University: www.upress.umn.edu/Books/C/cohen_monster.html, 2001. Johnson, Tim. Grendel. New York: www.panix.com/~iayork/Literary/Grendel/grendel2.html, 2001.