title: A structural, spectroscopic and theoretical study of the triphenylphosphine chalcogenide complexes of tungsten carbonyl, [W(XPPh3)(CO)5], X=O, S, Se

authors: Cook, Julian B.

subjects: tungsten carbonyl

abstract: The series [W(XPPh3)(CO)5], X=O, S, Se has been structurally determined by X-ray crystallography and fully characterised spectroscopically to provide data for comparing the bonding of the Ph3PX ligands to the metal. The P-X-W angles are 134.3°, 113.2° and 109.2°, respectively, for X=O, S, Se. The bonding has been analysed using EHMO calculations which suggest that lower P-X-W angles depend on the relative importance of σ-bonding, which in turn depends on the chalcogen in the order X=Se > S > O. The effect is enhanced by lower energies of the metal σ and π orbital energies.

text: A structural, spectroscopic and theoretical study of the triphenylphosphine chalcogenide complexes of tungsten carbonyl, [W(XPPh3)(CO)5], X=O, S, Se The series [W(XPPh3)(CO)5], X=O, S, Se has been structurally determined by X-ray crystallography and fully characterised spectroscopically to provide data for comparing the bonding of the Ph3PX ligands to the metal. The P-X-W angles are 134.3°, 113.2° and 109.2°, respectively, for X=O, S, Se. The bonding has been analysed using EHMO calculations which suggest that lower P-X-W angles depend on the relative importance of σ-bonding, which in turn depends on the chalcogen in the order X=Se > S > O. The effect is enhanced by lower energies of the metal σ and π orbital energies.

year: 2004-02-01

title: Love me long time: safety and risk in heterocoupledom at adolescence.

authors: Parker, Lisa Maree

abstract: This thesis argues that heterocoupledom at adolescence discursively constitutes Girlfriends and Boyfriends as gendered subjects of safety and risk. The gendering of safety and risk operates to position Girlfriends as risk navigators who make pre-emptive and response-able moves. Safety and risk are regarded as disciplinary techniques that regulate Girlfriends’ performances in relation to defending or maintaining safety and managing risk. It is argued that this positioning as risk navigators only makes ‘sense’ when the subject of Girlfriend is figured as already unsafe and yet responsible for risk. Boyfriends are argued to be positioned as already safe and capable risk takers within heterocoupledom and this configuration means that young men’s engagements with safety and risk remain normalised and unproblematic.

Interviews with young women and focus groups with young women and men were conducted in the mid 1990's. i then read these texts from a feminist discursive position. This discursive approach to feminist psychology is described as it shifted politically and across disciplinary boundaries. Drawing from feminist readings of Foucauldian understandings of power and heterosexuality, i have examined the ways in which hegemonic discourses of heterocoupledom constitute Girlfriends as subjects who are expected to take responsibility for managing and navigating safety and risk. Throughout i ‘make strange’ the way risk warnings convey a taken for granted sensibility that young women should take precautions against harm, abuse and violence, and defend against their safety. The constitution of Girlfriend as already unsafe and Boyfriend as already safe is problematised.

The thesis is structured around a reading of the constitution of gendered heterocoupledom, romance, risk and adolescence, and problematises how heterocoupledom is entered into, the labours of love, and the young women’s responses to harm, abuse, and violence from Boyfriends. Among the many discourses discussed, a discourse of feminine sexuality as threatened and threatening is argued to position young women as already unsafe. A girl-power femininity is argued to have been recuperated to incite young women to become subject to the labours of navigating for safety. i also pay attention to the many subversions of the discourses of gender that young people make in their everyday heterocoupledom and how masculinity and femininity are remixed in a post-modern, globalised capitalist Western context where both recuperation and resistance are at work. The overall focus remains on the disciplinary workings and implications for Girlfriends of navigating a double danger where safety (as managing risk) depends on the re-invention and reification of the already unsafe subject - Girlfriend.

text: Love me long time: safety and risk in heterocoupledom at adolescence. This thesis argues that heterocoupledom at adolescence discursively constitutes Girlfriends and Boyfriends as gendered subjects of safety and risk. The gendering of safety and risk operates to position Girlfriends as risk navigators who make pre-emptive and response-able moves. Safety and risk are regarded as disciplinary techniques that regulate Girlfriends’ performances in relation to defending or maintaining safety and managing risk. It is argued that this positioning as risk navigators only makes ‘sense’ when the subject of Girlfriend is figured as already unsafe and yet responsible for risk. Boyfriends are argued to be positioned as already safe and capable risk takers within heterocoupledom and this configuration means that young men’s engagements with safety and risk remain normalised and unproblematic.

Interviews with young women and focus groups with young women and men were conducted in the mid 1990's. i then read these texts from a feminist discursive position. This discursive approach to feminist psychology is described as it shifted politically and across disciplinary boundaries. Drawing from feminist readings of Foucauldian understandings of power and heterosexuality, i have examined the ways in which hegemonic discourses of heterocoupledom constitute Girlfriends as subjects who are expected to take responsibility for managing and navigating safety and risk. Throughout i ‘make strange’ the way risk warnings convey a taken for granted sensibility that young women should take precautions against harm, abuse and violence, and defend against their safety. The constitution of Girlfriend as already unsafe and Boyfriend as already safe is problematised.

The thesis is structured around a reading of the constitution of gendered heterocoupledom, romance, risk and adolescence, and problematises how heterocoupledom is entered into, the labours of love, and the young women’s responses to harm, abuse, and violence from Boyfriends. Among the many discourses discussed, a discourse of feminine sexuality as threatened and threatening is argued to position young women as already unsafe. A girl-power femininity is argued to have been recuperated to incite young women to become subject to the labours of navigating for safety. i also pay attention to the many subversions of the discourses of gender that young people make in their everyday heterocoupledom and how masculinity and femininity are remixed in a post-modern, globalised capitalist Western context where both recuperation and resistance are at work. The overall focus remains on the disciplinary workings and implications for Girlfriends of navigating a double danger where safety (as managing risk) depends on the re-invention and reification of the already unsafe subject - Girlfriend.

year: 2002

title: An outsider's guide to public oral history in New Zealand

authors: Mahuika, Nepia

subjects: Oral history

abstract: At the beginning of this century, public history in New Zealand was considered a ‘new term’ in historical practice, described as crucial in both ‘the emergence of professional history writing’ and the assertion of ‘cultural nationalism.’¹ In the past decade, scholars here have highlighted its breadth and significance in ‘the employment of historians and the historical method outside academia; in government, private companies, the media, historical societies and museums, as well as those working in private practice.’² Oral history has also become a significant part of public history’s nation-making, key in the collecting of exceptional and ‘ordinary’ public voices.³ For Māori, current definitions of oral and public history are problematic because, as this essay suggests, both are constructed within Pākehā-centric perspectives of history, tradition, orality and what counts as ‘public.’ Public history has been called a ‘slippery process’, often shaped in a contrast between ‘people’s history’ and a ‘search for social cohesion’.4 This search for ‘cohesion’ is a familiar colonial refrain that fuels a healthy native scepticism of public history as yet another settler-centric invention that keeps us on the outside. This essay considers the ways in which public oral history in New Zealand is articulated, noting how this is done within narrow definitions and binaries that displace, ignore, or distort, indigenous perspectives. It suggests a rethinking of oral history as a movement beyond current binaries in the field, and advocates a widening of the meaning of oral sources, methods and politics, in order to include indigenous definitions as legitimately oral and public. This analysis is decolonial, not because it seeks an eradication of nationalism, but because it seeks to disrupt colonial-centric meanings of oral and public history by recentering Māori perspectives as legitimate to the New Zealand public oral history vernacular.

text: An outsider's guide to public oral history in New Zealand At the beginning of this century, public history in New Zealand was considered a ‘new term’ in historical practice, described as crucial in both ‘the emergence of professional history writing’ and the assertion of ‘cultural nationalism.’¹ In the past decade, scholars here have highlighted its breadth and significance in ‘the employment of historians and the historical method outside academia; in government, private companies, the media, historical societies and museums, as well as those working in private practice.’² Oral history has also become a significant part of public history’s nation-making, key in the collecting of exceptional and ‘ordinary’ public voices.³ For Māori, current definitions of oral and public history are problematic because, as this essay suggests, both are constructed within Pākehā-centric perspectives of history, tradition, orality and what counts as ‘public.’ Public history has been called a ‘slippery process’, often shaped in a contrast between ‘people’s history’ and a ‘search for social cohesion’.4 This search for ‘cohesion’ is a familiar colonial refrain that fuels a healthy native scepticism of public history as yet another settler-centric invention that keeps us on the outside. This essay considers the ways in which public oral history in New Zealand is articulated, noting how this is done within narrow definitions and binaries that displace, ignore, or distort, indigenous perspectives. It suggests a rethinking of oral history as a movement beyond current binaries in the field, and advocates a widening of the meaning of oral sources, methods and politics, in order to include indigenous definitions as legitimately oral and public. This analysis is decolonial, not because it seeks an eradication of nationalism, but because it seeks to disrupt colonial-centric meanings of oral and public history by recentering Māori perspectives as legitimate to the New Zealand public oral history vernacular.

year: 2017