Collaborative Governance: A Guide for Grantmakers

Provides a framework for understanding the different tools and approaches within the emerging field of collaborative governance. Includes case examples that illustrate how the process works, and how it can be applied in specific situations

Look Into My Eyes

Freddie Yauner, a lecturer in Design for Industry, believes that design can engage, inform and make complex concepts accessible. Through thought provoking projects and installations which have exhibited in New York, Paris and London, Freddie uses critical design to challenge convention and encourage debate. Utilising this approach, Freddie, teamed up with typographer and graphic designer Paul Robson, also from our school and Cathy John, a freelance writer to create their unique publication - Look into my Eyes. Through combined expertise Look into my Eyes was created, a book that explores the labyrinth of decisions facing MS patients from day one of their diagnosis and examines the impact each of these decisions could have on their day to day lives. Look into my Eyes was created as part of a wider programme of initiatives that use real life experiences and interaction design to place audiences firmly in the shoes of an MSer, with the aim of increasing understanding and acceptance of MS for patients, carers and health professionals alike

A study of twenty mental patients who completed trial visit.

Thesis (M.S.)--Boston University N.B.: Cover page is missing from original thesis

Constantinople as 'New Rome'

In modern works it is often stated that Constantinople was called ‘New Rome’ (or ‘Second Rome’), with the implication that this was an official title. This incorrect statement is particularly common in works written by scholars whose first, and perhaps only, language is English (which is why a thorough English-language study of the question, with the relevant evidence translated into English and analysed rather than simply accepted, is needed).      Some ancient authors (writing long after the foundation of the city) do in fact say or imply that Constantinople was formally named ‘New Rome’ or ‘Second Rome’, but this claim is, as Franz Dölger wrote a long time ago, ‘auf einer Fiktion beruht’. These expressions belong to laudatory rhetoric and elevated historical prose and poetry, and are never found in official documents or on the coinage. Also, who could believe that Constantine I would ever have allowed any name other than his to be the official name of his new city?       The present study examines the relevant evidence in order to demonstrate that it is wrong to say that Constantine’s city was ever officially called anything other than ‘Constantinople’. On the other hand, it also shows that in an ecclesiastical context it has been correct to refer to ‘New Rome’, ever since the decision of the Oecumenical Council of A.D. 381, arranged by Theodosius I.      The question has often been discussed in the past, but this study of the evidence reaches a firmer conclusion than most previous discussions, explains why an incorrect opinion has flourished, analyses the evidence more closely and presents it in English.In modern works it is often stated that Constantinople was called ‘New Rome’ (or ‘Second Rome’), with the implication that this was an official title. This incorrect statement is particularly common in works written by scholars whose first, and perhaps only, language is English (which is why a thorough English-language study of the question, with the relevant evidence translated into English and analysed rather than simply accepted, is needed).      Some ancient authors (writing long after the foundation of the city) do in fact say or imply that Constantinople was formally named ‘New Rome’ or ‘Second Rome’, but this claim is, as Franz Dölger wrote a long time ago, ‘auf einer Fiktion beruht’. These expressions belong to laudatory rhetoric and elevated historical prose and poetry, and are never found in official documents or on the coinage. Also, who could believe that Constantine I would ever have allowed any name other than his to be the official name of his new city?      The present study examines the relevant evidence in order to demonstrate that it is wrong to say that Constantine’s city was ever officially called anything other than ‘Constantinople’. On the other hand, it also shows that in an ecclesiastical context it has been correct to refer to ‘New Rome’, ever since the decision of the Oecumenical Council of A.D. 381, arranged by Theodosius I.      The question has often been discussed in the past, but this study of the evidence reaches a firmer conclusion than most previous discussions, explains why an incorrect opinion has flourished, analyses the evidence more closely and presents it in English

Constantinople as 'New Rome'

In modern works it is often stated that Constantinople was called ‘New Rome’ (or ‘Second Rome’), with the implication that this was an official title. This incorrect statement is particularly common in works written by scholars whose first, and perhaps only, language is English (which is why a thorough English-language study of the question, with the relevant evidence translated into English and analysed rather than simply accepted, is needed).      Some ancient authors (writing long after the foundation of the city) do in fact say or imply that Constantinople was formally named ‘New Rome’ or ‘Second Rome’, but this claim is, as Franz Dölger wrote a long time ago, ‘auf einer Fiktion beruht’. These expressions belong to laudatory rhetoric and elevated historical prose and poetry, and are never found in official documents or on the coinage. Also, who could believe that Constantine I would ever have allowed any name other than his to be the official name of his new city?       The present study examines the relevant evidence in order to demonstrate that it is wrong to say that Constantine’s city was ever officially called anything other than ‘Constantinople’. On the other hand, it also shows that in an ecclesiastical context it has been correct to refer to ‘New Rome’, ever since the decision of the Oecumenical Council of A.D. 381, arranged by Theodosius I.      The question has often been discussed in the past, but this study of the evidence reaches a firmer conclusion than most previous discussions, explains why an incorrect opinion has flourished, analyses the evidence more closely and presents it in English.In modern works it is often stated that Constantinople was called ‘New Rome’ (or ‘Second Rome’), with the implication that this was an official title. This incorrect statement is particularly common in works written by scholars whose first, and perhaps only, language is English (which is why a thorough English-language study of the question, with the relevant evidence translated into English and analysed rather than simply accepted, is needed).      Some ancient authors (writing long after the foundation of the city) do in fact say or imply that Constantinople was formally named ‘New Rome’ or ‘Second Rome’, but this claim is, as Franz Dölger wrote a long time ago, ‘auf einer Fiktion beruht’. These expressions belong to laudatory rhetoric and elevated historical prose and poetry, and are never found in official documents or on the coinage. Also, who could believe that Constantine I would ever have allowed any name other than his to be the official name of his new city?      The present study examines the relevant evidence in order to demonstrate that it is wrong to say that Constantine’s city was ever officially called anything other than ‘Constantinople’. On the other hand, it also shows that in an ecclesiastical context it has been correct to refer to ‘New Rome’, ever since the decision of the Oecumenical Council of A.D. 381, arranged by Theodosius I.      The question has often been discussed in the past, but this study of the evidence reaches a firmer conclusion than most previous discussions, explains why an incorrect opinion has flourished, analyses the evidence more closely and presents it in English

Katerfelto: A Story of Exmoor

Dialecto Literario. -- Dialecto de Devonshire. -- Pertenece a la colección LD-1800-1950 de The Salamanca Corpus. -- George John Whyte-Melville, 1821-1878. -- Katerfelto: A Story of Exmoor -- 1875.[ES] Novela que se desarrolla en Devonshire y que contiene dialecto de Devonshire. [EN] Novel that takes place in Devonshire and which contains Devonshire dialect