So I am just very glad to see Bourdieu and Wenger crop at least into research-driven activities, if not into teaching.

Robin has been and is very closely involved in the MA ODE – I’m fairly sure he’s chair of H808 at the moment.

Would love to see some of this trickle down into programmes such as the MA in Online and Distance Education, though.

UK Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) first passed 1995. (Education exclude from obligations under this act.)

Special Educational Needs Disability Act (SENDA) amended DDA and became DDA part 4 in 2001. This stated the specific rights and responsibilities in education.

The DDA then went though a further amendment in 2005. It is DDA 2005 that is the current legislation.

The Code of Practice to accompany the DDA for providers of post-16 education and related services produced by the now defunct Disability Rights Commission is still made available by the Equality and Human Rights Commission:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/code_of_practice__revised__for_providers_of_post-16_education_and_related_services__dda_.pdf

Cheers,

Martyn

I’ve found that creating Large Print in Word has then helped in linearizing text for audio transcriptions, but never gone the whole way to using Word format is the primary document format. Do you do any DTP work? Any heavily graphical work?

In Scotland there’s been a presumption of mainstreaming pupils since 2000, and the 3 exceptions are explicitly spelled out in legislation.

Re: deaf students studying music. Have you seen Eveleyn Glennie talking about deaf people learning music (7:51) and student access to Royal Academy of Music (10:19)?
http://www.ted.com/talks/evelyn_glennie_shows_how_to_listen.html

For journals, there’s several proposed ways of dealing with it, none of which are entirely satisfactory. You can try to infer which author is which automatically, by cluster analysis (subject, co-authors, journal etc). That seems to work better than it ought to (to my mind) but still falls down badly when you have two very similarly-named people working in overlapping fields at the same time. Or you can create a central ID system for authors, where authors authenticate themselves and lay claim to ‘their’ papers. (Local versions of this exist already – any institutional repository of papers, like our own ORO, does that job. And some subject areas have their own systems that do it too.) Or you can just wave your hands at it and say it’s probably not much of a problem and it roughly comes out in the wash.

Some combination of that lot is probably the answer!

Newer forms of digital scholarship make some things easier and some things harder. It’s often easier to attribute authorship to a single identified entity – although group blogs and people blogging in multiple contexts makes it slightly trickier. And tracking references is easier (Google does it for you, in many ways) and harder (how do you rule out links from spam blogs?).

The manual calculation is a bit tricky, but the benefit is that individual scholars are best placed to do it: they know (or ought to!) what papers they’ve written, and are motivated to find the lot and work out the highest score they can get. But that’s probably a better bet in disciplines where that sort of algorithmic thinking is part of the domain!

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to add a footer to items in the RSS feed of a WordPress.com hosted blog like mine. (Or at least, if there is, I can’t find it, and neither can lots of people on the WordPress.com forums.) So I’ll have to rely on cut-and-pasting it myself, which is a bit tedious, and I’m bound to forget sometimes. But better than nothing.