A new look at the problem of gauge invariance in quantum field theory

Quantum field theory is assumed to be gauge invariant. However it is well known that when certain quantities are calculated using perturbation theory the results are not gauge invariant. The non-gauge invariant terms have to be removed in order to obtain a physically correct result. In this paper we will examine this problem and determine why a theory that is supposed to be gauge invariant produces non-gauge invariant results.Comment: Accepted by Physica Scripta. 27 page

Dense Molecular Gas and the Role of Star Formation in the Host Galaxies of Quasi-Stellar Objects

New millimeter-wave CO and HCN observations of the host galaxies of infrared-excess Palomar Green quasi-stellar objects (PG QSOs) previously detected in CO are presented. These observations are designed to assess the validity of using the infrared luminosity to estimate star formation rates of luminous AGN by determining the relative significance of dust-heating by young, massive stars and active galactic nuclei (AGN) in QSO hosts and IRAS galaxies with warm, AGN-like infrared colors. The HCN data show the PG QSO host IZw1 and most of the warm IRAS galaxies to have high L_IR / L'_HCN (>1600) relative to the cool IRAS galaxy population for which the median L_IR / L'_HCN ~ 890(+440,-470). If the assumption is made that the infrared emission from cool IRAS galaxies is reprocessed light from embedded star-forming regions, then high values of L_IR / L'_HCN are likely the result of dust heating by the AGN. Further, if the median ratio of L'_HCN / L'_CO ~ 0.06 observed for Seyfert galaxies and IZw1 is applied to the PG QSOs not detected in HCN, then the derived L_IR / L'_HCN correspond to a stellar contribution to the production of L_IR of ~ 7-39%, and star formation rates ~ 2-37 M_sun/yr are derived for the QSO hosts. Alternatively, if the far-infrared is adopted as the star formation component of the total infrared in cool galaxies, the stellar contributions in QSO hosts to their L_FIR are up to 35% higher than the percentages derived for L_IR. This raises the possibility that the L_FIR in several of the PG QSO hosts, including IZw1, could be due entirely to dust heated by young, massive stars. Finally, there is no evidence that the global HCN emission is enhanced relative to CO in galaxies hosting luminous AGN.Comment: LaTex, 31 pages, including 9 postscript figures, AJ, in press (December 2006

Microfinance and Entrepreneurship: The Enabling Role of Social Capital Among Female Entrepreneurs

Purpose This paper examines mechanisms through which social capital strengthens microfinance impact on fostering female entrepreneurial success. Specifically, the study focuses on how, and to what extent, resources embedded in social networks determine MF impact on entrepreneurial success. Design/methodology/approach Survey data were collected from 276 female micro-institutions entrepreneurs using multi-stage stratified random sampling across 80 MF institutions in three South-Western Nigerian states. Hypotheses were tested using ordinal regression analysis. Findings The study found that relational and network social capital had a positive and significant influence on female entrepreneurial success. Specifically, intra-group trust and productive network ties amongst female entrepreneurs in poor communities predicated the positive impact of MF on entrepreneurial success. Also, resources embedded in networks are more positively correlated to education level and marital status. Furthermore, MF could have more positive impact for borrowers with sustainable relationships with loan officers who organise MF provisions and understand the entrepreneurs’ context. Originality/value The research provides empirical evidence for the relationship dynamics between female entrepreneurs and MF institutions, by emphasising the importance of deploying different forms of social capital in sustaining MF impact on female entrepreneurial success

Space and surface power for the space exploration initiative: Results from project outreach

The analysis and evaluations of the Space and Surface Power panel, one of eight panels created by RAND to screen and analyze submissions to the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) Outreach Program, is documented. In addition to managing and evaluating the responses, or submissions, to this public outreach program, RAND conducted its own analysis and evaluation relevent to SEI mission concepts, systems, and technologies. The Power panel screened and analyzed submissions for which a substantial portion of the concepts involved power generation sources, transmission, distribution, thermal management, and handling of power (including conditioning, conversion, packaging, and enhancements in system components). A background discussion of the areas the Power panel covered and the issues the reviewers considered pertinent to the analysis of power submissions are presented. An overview of each of the highest-ranked submissions and then a discussion of these submissions is presented. The results of the analysis is presented

Co-producing knowledge: negotiating the political.

This paper takes its cue from Stronach and MacLure (1997) and hopes to be more problem-generating than problem-solving. We do not want to set down a ‘how to do collaborative research’, but instead explore the methodological and political complexities of doing collaborative research with industry partners. In doing this we want to draw attention to the uncertainties and messy ‘business’ of collaborative research. We are particularly interested in exploring the political tensions around the co-production of knowledge and we ask ‘how might we use research methodologies that incorporate uncertainty and disruption while at the same time remaining credible and legitimate to our research partners and academics?’ We recognise that a ‘methodology of disappointment’, where the ‘comforts of certainty’ are abandoned (Stronach & MacLure, 1997), may not have the same appeal to our industry partners as it does within our research team. And not always do academics enjoy uncertainty! We explore these themes and questions by taking a reflexive look at our own research practice in a collaborative research project that is currently underway in Australia. Government views on the relationship between research and economic activity are driving changes in research funding arrangements in Australia (Hon. Dr Brendan Nelson MP, 2002). The increase in collaborative research partnerships between universities and industry, as well as an increasing pressure on universities to view their work in commercial terms are evidence of these changes. In these performative times we are told we need to be ‘entrepreneurs’ (Gallagher, 2000) and the commodification of education requires that researchers learn how to play a new game. But does playing the game mean we need to automatically ‘tow the corporate line’ in collaborative partnerships with industry? Stronach and MacLure (1997) suggest that ‘it may be possible to envisage new concepts and practices of research that do not simply surrender to…the general demands of performativity’ (Stronach & MacLure, 1997, p. 100). Luke (1995) writes about a ‘pragmatic politics of the postmodern’ and recommends that it is time to start ‘getting our hands dirty’. Scheeres & Solomon (2000) point out that one way of doing this is to recognise the research methodology as ‘a site of contention’ where a number of different positions can be taken up by researchers. We are interested in this paper in exploring the ways knowledge is being co-produced in the ‘Uncovering Learning’ project and the contested nature of this knowledge production. We adopt an understanding of power, where we are more interested in the way power relations have been negotiated in the project and the spaces this has opened up, rather than assuming that industry is all-powerful. But before exploring the ‘sites of struggle’ of the project and the spaces that have been opened up, we take a closer look at collaborations in the ‘Uncovering Learning’ project. The ‘Uncovering Learning’ project involves many layers of collaborative partnerships. The project is a three-year Australian Research Council funded project which is part of the strategic partnerships with industry – research and training (SPIRT) program. The project involves a research partnership between the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) and the Department of Education and Training (DET), a state government department. DET and UTS are working collaboratively to explore the significance of everyday learning at work. The workplace being studied is TAFE NSW, the state government provider of vocational education and training in NSW. But rather than focusing on TAFE as an educational institution our interest in this project is on TAFE as a workplace. TAFE is a large organisation and employs approximately 35,000 people in NSW. As well as the partnership between UTS and DET, the research team present as another layer of collaboration. The research team could be described as a ‘cross-boundary’ group, as members come from both inside and outside of TAFE, as well as across various disciplines including adult education, applied linguistics, psychology and organisational behaviour. The team is made up of two senior researchers from UTS, a DET representative who works in the Professional Development Network at TAFE, a research associate and a doctoral student. The research interests of the team members vary and this has contributed to the opening up of project questions and connections beyond the focus of just one discipline. In this sense, we (the research team) could be thought of as the embodiment of the theoretical and knowledge worlds we are studying in the project. The research team is working collaboratively with four workgroups in TAFE and this illustrates yet another layer of collaboration. The four workgroups that we are working with in the project come from diverse occupational areas and diverse hierarchical levels across two institutes in TAFE. One group are senior level managers in an institute, another are trade teachers, another group works in a human resources unit performing mainly administrative functions and the final group provide business related training in the workplace. While these are the most obvious collaborations, there are many other layers of collaboration connected with the project. For example collaborations between the research team and: the Faculty of Education at UTS; the Research Office; and the Australian Research Council. There are also layers within layers of collaboration, for example the two senior researchers in the project are the academic supervisors of the PhD student. The contemporary research context and the interrelated layering and multiplicities associated with collaborative partnerships begin to ‘flag’ the political complexities of doing collaborative research. These are foregrounded when we ask: What’s in it for UTS? What’s in it for TAFE? What are the interests of each of the members of the research team? What do the Professional Development Network want from this? What are the interests of each of the workgroup members who are collaborating on the project? The ‘political’ refers to both the macro politics of government policy and the local politics of research teams and workgroups and the alignments between these. We will explore the political complexities of collaborative partnerships further by focusing on some of the ‘sites of struggle’ in the ‘Uncovering Learning’ project. There is pressure on researchers to produce output-driven knowledge in the contemporary research context (Usher, 2000). The research contract between UTS and DET provides an example of the type of output-driven knowledge that is required in partnership arrangements. For example, the contract states that UTS will provide their industry partner with the following research outcomes: • Improved recognition of the learning to be found in the organisation, to the benefit of both the organisation and individual employees. • Improved understanding by key personnel in the organisations of the ways in which organisational culture and procedures encourage or inhibit learning, and the issues which need to be resolved in developing the learning organisation. • Improved learning systems and learning strategies in the organisation that will more effectively facilitate learning embedded in practice. But rather than providing just a straight ‘outcomes’ focus for the project we have attempted to reconcile the performative contractual obligations with our own research interests and desires. In this sense, the methodology of the project becomes a ‘site of struggle’. Various ‘openings’ have been created in the project to move it beyond a performative focus. One way we have done this is by disrupting conventional educational discourses of learning. Stronach and MacLure suggest that rather than providing certainty through educational research that a better strategy might be ‘…to see how far it can get by failing to deliver simple truths’ (1997, p. 6). While they are referring to commissioned research for the development of educational policy by government, we can see that this is also a useful way for approaching industry contracted research in the field of workplace learning. While contemporary adult learning discourses such as lifelong learning and situated learning have contributed to breaking down the old binaries between work and learning, these discourses do not challenge performative notions of what counts as learning in organisations. We are interested in mobilising the meanings of ‘learning’ and opening up different ways of thinking about learning at work. The above discussion suggests a unified purpose within the research team, however, the cross-boundary nature of the research team has meant a multiplicity of interests and desires. We have different ideas on what the project should be doing and what we want out of the project. But rather than adopting a research methodology based on consensus, with unified research goals and objectives, we have tried to open-up space in the project for a multiplicity of voices, identities, meanings and narratives (Rooney, Boud, Harman, Leontios, & Solomon, 2003). Having said this, we have still followed the established model of research where researchers: enter the workplace, collect data, analyse the data, and report the findings to our research partner, academic communities and other relevant agencies. But within this structure we have disrupted and made space for different voices. For example there have been different ways of analysing and making sense of the data we have collected. One version adopted an interpretive approach and examined the ‘who we learn from at work’ (Boud & Middleton). Another focused on the discourses of learning and explored the ‘naming of learning at work’ (Boud & Solomon, 2003). Still others used a communities of practice framework (Leontios, Boud, Harman, & Rooney, 2003). There are many examples from the project of the contested nature of co-produced knowledge. Some of these are referred to in other papers from the project (Rooney et al., 2003; Solomon, Boud, Leontios, & Staron, 2001) while many just do not get written up. Some project stories remain unwritten and only circulate in oral accounts. This is yet another instance of negotiating the political, where some things just can’t be written. While wanting to disrupt and challenge, there is also the recognition that the members of the research team have ‘business’ interests. For example, the academics are in the business of research where there is a need for ongoing contracts with industry partners, and this is less likely when you are using a ‘methodology of disappointment’! The tensions around ‘disrupting’, ‘contesting’ and ‘resisting closure’ in the ‘Uncovering Learning’ project were foregrounded in the project during feedback sessions with the workgroups. After conducting initial interviews with members from each of the workgroups, feedback sessions were organised to move the project into its second stage, where we would be working with each of the workgroups on a ‘learning’ project. A document was prepared which we presented to the workgroups, not as a document of ‘facts’, but more as a trigger for conversations about their learning. In this sense it was a document that raised questions rather than provide simple truths. It was around this time that dissatisfaction was expressed by some of the workgroups about the project. They felt it was vague and lacked direction. The hybridity and looseness of the project needed to be ‘tightened up’ for us to establish legitimacy with the workgroups. We made a strategic decision to present a coherent story to each of the workgroups in an effort to seduce. It is important to recognise that when we talk about collaborative partnerships as sites of struggle it is not as simple as drawing an academy/industry divide. Further complexity is added when we take into consideration that one of the ‘we’ writing this paper is also an employee of the partner organisation and representative of the industry partner on the research team. There are struggles around managing the outcomes focus required by your employer while not wanting to restrict the ‘intellectual freedom’ of project team members. Overall, our reflexive tales point to the political nature of collaborative research. Collaborative partnerships connect multiple stakeholders with different accountabilities. The ‘multiplicities’ within collaborative research produce messiness and uncertainty, but with this ‘messiness’ there is also regulation. This account of the project draws our attention to the tensions around ‘messiness’, hybrid methodologies and regulation, and these tensions provide yet another layer of political complexity. While the messy research of our collaborative partnership may produce discomfort, for both industry partners and academics, we suggest they are productive. Our hybrid methodology/s have enabled the opening-up of spaces in the research project and the production of knowledge about learning, and researching learning at work. Our reflexivity has enabled us to explore the tensions around co-producing knowledge. We have found these practices ‘useful’ in our performative research context

Application of remote sensing to state and regional problems

There are no author-identified significant results in this report

Microfinance and Entrepreneurship: The Enabling Role of Social Capital

Although scholars highlight the importance of social capital for accessing various resources embedded in social networks, little is known about the mechanisms through which social capital strengthens the impact of micro-finance on fostering entrepreneurship. Drawing on forms of social capital, this paper seeks to examine how, and to what extent resources embedded in social networks determine the impact of micro-finance on entrepreneurial success

Application of remote sensing to state and regional problems

The author has identified the following significant results. The Lowndes County data base is essentially complete with 18 primary variables and 16 proximity variables encoded into the geo-information system. The single purpose, decision tree classifier is now operational. Signatures for the thematic extraction of strip mines from LANDSAT Digital data were obtained by employing both supervised and nonsupervised procedures. Dry, blowing sand areas of beach were also identified from the LANDSAT data. The primary procedure was the analysis of analog data on the I2S signal slicer

Uncovering learning at work.

The Australian Research Council project, Uncovering Learning at Work explored the extent and nature of informal learning and its contribution and significance to the TAFE workplace and its employees. The research was a qualitative study carried out in partnership between the University of Technology, Sydney and the TAFE Professional Development Network unit. This collaborative arrangement was ideal for this study because TAFE, as an organisation, are interested in the relationship between work and learning. The research employed the term ‘everyday learning’ to describe the phenomenon under investigation. This understanding recognises that there are elements of both formality and informality in all learning situations. Uncovering Learning at Work was conducted in three stages. The first involved one-to-one interviews and the collection of initial qualitative data. In the second the researchers worked closely with individual workgroups around particular workplace issues. The final stage examined the implications of the project for TAFE and its employees in collaboration with key TAFE stakeholders. The questions the research focused on were about: • ideas staff had about learning • staff perceptions of learning opportunities in TAFE • how staff constructed learning through their work relationships for their own benefit and for the strategic goals for TAFE • key strategies for identifying and utilising learning opportunities without undermining existing informal learning processes • theories of adult learning that took account of the work-related learning of TAFE staff in an organisational context. This research followed four workgroups over a period of three years. The four workgroups came from two Sydney metropolitan Institutes of TAFE. The workgroups represented a range of organisational areas including a trade teaching unit, an administrative unit, a group of senior managers and a unit responsible for workplace delivery. Analysis of project data resulted in several important findings. These are presented in four themes, which are briefly discussed in this report: full details are available in the listed publications. The four themes are: 1. What we learn and who we learn from - Three significant areas of learning were evident in analysis of the interviews. Analysis of the project data yielded two interesting findings with regard to who workers learned from. Very few people that were actively sought by staff to help them learn are generally understood as people with an ‘official’ role in promoting workplace learning. 2. Naming learning and naming oneself as a learner – The research suggests there is a complex politics involved in the naming of learning and the naming of oneself as a learner in this organisation. This is further complicated given that TAFE has learning as its raison d’etre and, as a workplace, there is much more informed discourse about workplace learning and its value compared to most other organisations. 3. Spaces of learning – this report suggests ‘Space’ is a helpful concept for thinking about everyday learning in TAFE and at work in general. The research drew on broad understandings of space, identity and learning and found the analysis of everyday learning in spatial terms can open opportunities for investigating workplace learning. The focus drew attention to what was called ‘in-between’ spaces. These new understandings unsettled the binaries that are commonly accepted by most workplaces: on-the-job / off-the-job, worker / learner etc. It is these ‘in-between’ spaces that interesting things were happening in regard to everyday learning. 4. Researching learning in contemporary workplaces - Throughout the project the research team explored the complexities of collaboratively researching workplace learning. This was important because while workplaces are popular sights for contemporary research, and collaborative research is popular catchcry of contemporary researchers, both workplace and collaborative research typically gloss over the complexities and contradictions this type of research often encompasses. Arising from its analysis, this report puts forward a number of discussion points for consideration by TAFE. The areas for discussion include: - relationships between informal and formal - significance of everyday learning - imposing formality - languages of learning - learning dimensions of change - local relationships - role for structured learning - future research. These areas for discussion suggest some possible strategies that TAFE may consider in order to enhance the everyday learning of the organisation

Neuregulin-1 attenuates mortality associated with experimental cerebral malaria.

BackgroundCerebral Malaria (CM) is a diffuse encephalopathy caused by Plasmodium falciparum infection. Despite availability of antimalarial drugs, CM-associated mortality remains high at approximately 30% and a subset of survivors develop neurological and cognitive disabilities. While antimalarials are effective at clearing Plasmodium parasites they do little to protect against CM pathophysiology and parasite-induced brain inflammation that leads to seizures, coma and long-term neurological sequelae in CM patients. Thus, there is urgent need to explore therapeutics that can reduce or prevent CM pathogenesis and associated brain inflammation to improve survival. Neuregulin-1 (NRG-1) is a neurotrophic growth factor shown to protect against brain injury associated with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and neurotoxin exposure. However, this drug has not been tested against CM-associated brain injury. Since CM-associated brain injuries and AIS share similar pathophysiological features, we hypothesized that NRG-1 will reduce or prevent neuroinflammation and brain damage as well as improve survival in mice with late-stage experimental cerebral malaria (ECM).MethodsWe tested the effects of NRG-1 on ECM-associated brain inflammation and mortality in P. berghei ANKA (PbA)-infected mice and compared to artemether (ARM) treatment; an antimalarial currently used in various combination therapies against malaria.ResultsTreatment with ARM (25 mg/kg/day) effectively cleared parasites and reduced mortality in PbA-infected mice by 82%. Remarkably, NRG-1 therapy (1.25 ng/kg/day) significantly improved survival against ECM by 73% despite increase in parasite burden within NRG-1-treated mice. Additionally, NRG-1 therapy reduced systemic and brain pro-inflammatory factors TNFalpha, IL-6, IL-1alpha and CXCL10 and enhanced anti-inflammatory factors, IL-5 and IL-13 while decreasing leukocyte accumulation in brain microvessels.ConclusionsThis study suggests that NRG-1 attenuates ECM-associated brain inflammation and injuries and may represent a novel supportive therapy for the management of CM