Author Archives: A Youngson

Cooperation key to tech cluster growth

Leave a reply

This post was contributed by Nick Eisen, School of Business, Economics and Informatics engagement correspondent.

CooperationLondon-based institutions such as Birkbeck could play a part in the development of tech start-ups and clusters outside London, even if that role is not the first thing that comes to mind when considering such development.

Addressing this possibility, ‪Emma Swift, Entrepreneur Relations Manager at digital business promoter Tech City UK, ‬ focused on one word: partnership.

Swift was one of a four-member panel at an event entitled “What must tech clusters outside London do to thrive?”.

Part of London Technology Week, the event on 15 June was organised by CE of Birkbeck Enterprise Hub, Ibrahim Maiga, chaired by Sureyya Cansoy, Director of Tech for Business and Consumer at techUK, and hosted by law firm Goodman Derrick at its offices in St Bride Street, five minutes’ walk from the London Stock Exchange.

What form any inside-outside London partnerships might take remained open, though Swift did refer to SETsquared, an enterprise collaboration between Bath, Bristol, Exeter, Southampton and Surrey universities that, according to its website “is a focus for enterprise activity and new business creation”.

In addition, what emerged from the afternoon implied possible outlines for such partnerships while not necessarily explicitly stating them.

Panel members noted that tech clusters outside London should avoid trying to copy it, and should instead continue to recognise and focus on developing what they are already doing well; and many of these clusters are indeed taking this approach.

Paul Smith, Managing Director of Newcastle-based accelerator Ignite100 noted the lower costs, good quality of life, coaching and building professional relationships that Newcastle could offer budding entrepreneurs compared with London. He also drew attention to Newcastle-based anchor firms such as business software solutions company Sage, the founders of which have gone on to support other start-ups: Sage itself having begun as a start-up in 1981.

Smith added that access to London is still useful for non-London businesses, for example, for being seen by potential investors and customers. However, as firms in Newcastle and other clusters show, that need not mean being based in London.

Richard Young, Director of the British Venture Capital Association in Manchester, remarked on the ability of his city’s entrepreneurs to take what they wanted from London back to their home base.

And Julian Blake, 
Editor of TechCityInsider.net, emphasised that universities are essential to the development of tech business.

From the audience, Helen Lawton Smith, Professor of Entrepreneurship and Director of the Centre for Innovation Management Research at Birkbeck’s Department of Management, emphasised that there are many very successful clusters outside London – such as Oxford and Cambridge – which have established large firms that recruit and supply labour and knowledge within their own localities.

Professor Lawton Smith added that, although there are many claims about the rapid increase in the number of tech firms in London, more evidence is needed on that number of firms and their performance, which will also inform policymakers about the demand for infrastructure, services and other requirements.

Perhaps then a wider focus is required. Could London universities offer platforms where non-London start-ups and clusters could showcase their activities, not in order to migrate to London or adopt a London way but to gain recognition and support for their own non-London ways in locations beyond London?

In turn, could such collaborations be another route for London institutions, among those in other parts of the UK, to help broaden perspectives, with knowledge transferring all ways – from and to different parts of the UK, including London?

For those who want to explore such topics further, on Wednesday 24 June, Birkbeck Clore Management Centre will host an event addressing the question: What is the role of universities in creating skills for the digital economy?

Find out more

Photo credit: NASA under CC from Flickr

A quiet anniversary? Reviewing the Race Relations Act 1965

Leave a reply

This post was contributed by Andrew Youngson, media and publicity officer for Birkbeck, University of London

Race-Relations-Act-webIt has been 50 years since the initial Race Relations Act was introduced in the UK. But despite progress being made in the fight against race-related discrimination since the 1965 Act came into play, many argue there is still a long road ahead before true race equality is reached.

A fascinating evening of discussion and debate around the Race Relation Acts of 1965, ’68 and ’76 as well as more recent legislation in 2003 and 2010 was held at Birkbeck’s Malet Street Building on Tuesday, June 19 as part of Social Sciences Week.

Run by the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism in collaboration with JCORE, the event brought together top thinkers in the field of race relations to review the historical context of the Acts, to explore the current landscape, and to consider the implications for the future.

Following introductory speeches by Professor David Feldman and Dr Edie Friedman, presentations were led by Dr Camilla Schofield from University of East Anglia, Dr Anastasia Vakulenko from the University of Birmingham and Dr Omar Khan of the Runnymede Trust.

“A quiet anniversary”

Dr Camilla Schofield spoke about the history of race relations, and the Race Relations Act, focusing in particular on the initial 1965 and 1968 Acts.

The 1965 Act, she explained, represented in many ways a radical break from the passivity of the UK legal system, but she noted that many anti-racist groups and activists felt the Act was not strong enough to challenge racial discrimination in a meaningful way.

For instance, of the 327 complaints made to the Race Relations Board between 1966 and 1968, 238 cases were considered to be outside its jurisdiction. As such, the Act was considered by many as a process of pacification, rather than criminal sanction.

While the 1968 Act extended the law to recognise private discrimination in employment, housing, credit and insurance, still it – like its predecessor – was not considered powerful enough, and was certainly not heralded as a triumph of the Left. This in part, Schofield explained, is perhaps why the 50th is such “a quiet anniversary”.

However, she made a case for reinvigorating interest in the Acts, and highlighted the importance of not considering them as outright failures. There is room, she said, “to tell their history from the bottom up”, by focusing on the experiences of the volunteers and officials who have been involved in the enforcement of the Acts, such as members of local conciliation committees. This would not be “a radical history”, she said, “but one of everyday lives”.

Muslims and Jews: “A fragmented picture”

Looking further on than the ’65 and ’68 Acts, Dr Anastasia Vakulenko discussed the historical perspective of the Race Relations Act with regards to Muslim and Jewish communities.

While the third iteration – the 1976 Act – was superseded by the Equality Act of 2010, Dr Vakulenko explained that many Muslims and Jews still feel they could be protected better under the law.

In the beginning of this journey, five decades ago, these groups were not at the top of the agenda, she explained. Their complexities in terms of self-identification, which run across cultural and religious boundaries, meant in many cases it was not easy to bring any discrimination cases to tribunal.

Fitting themselves to discrimination law was very difficult. Until 2003 for example, Jews could only make a case for discrimination on grounds of race, not religion. However, Dr Vakulenko noted, they were at least able to benefit from the Race Relations Act at a time when religious discrimination wasn’t recognised in law. Muslims, on the other hand, could only benefit indirectly, when the act of discrimination impacted on the individual on grounds of race e.g. if he or she was Muslim and Asian.

Through the latter half of her presentation, Dr Vakulenko cited recent cases which highlight the ongoing complexities in UK race relations and the responses of the legal system, such as that of 15-year-old Shabina Begum’s unsuccessful High Court battle to wear an ankle-length jibab gown in school; and the 2009 Jewish Free School case in which the school was ruled as guilty of having discriminated against a pupil who was not considered by the orthodox religious authorities to be authentically Jewish.

Looking at the current landscape, Dr Vakulenko said she saw a fragmented picture, in which Jewish and Muslim communities often see themselves as the most aggrieved minorities: with Muslims having to challenge discriminatory perceptions of being “radical extremists”; while Jews are tackling the image that, en masse, they are supporters of an “apartheid state”.

The challenge, then, is for these two communities to avoid falling into partisan political traps so that they may find a common ground and a stronger allied voice against discrimination.

“Do we need more legislation?”

Bringing the presentations to a close, Dr Omar Khan discussed the state of play for racial equality in the 21st Century.

Speaking from his position within the UK’s leading independent race equality thinktank, he explained why he believes it is misguided to think that we live in a “post racial society”. Rather, he finds there are considerable challenges to surmount before race equality can be reached:

  • The challenge of analysis – a difficult task when we consider that the nature of ethnic equalities always vary
  • The challenge of mobilisation/activism – given the relatively small population of each ethnic community, there is still a major need to bring them together in a sustainable way
  • The challenge of policy – without robust data collection, we can’t know the effectiveness of government policies on race equality.

Offering a new way to frame this argument, Dr Khan asked the question: ‘Do we still need further legislation in Britain, or is it about finding better ways to enforce the legislation that is in place?’

“Racism has not gone away,” Dr Khan told the audience. “It’s time to come together on a common platform in Britain”.

Without better enforcement and a wider, more honest debate on race equality, he added, it could be 50 or even 100 years before we can come close to being a ‘post-race society’.

Off the agenda?

Following the presentations, the speakers gathered together to field questions from the audience. Topics arising included the emergence of UKIP; whether race has fallen off the political and activist agenda; and how the Race Relations and Equalities Acts impact upon schools.

Dr Friedman offered some closing comments, noting that it is important not to forget the Race Relations Acts. Instead, they should be considered important milestones that should be followed up, to make sure that we continue working towards creating a society what we all want to live in.

Agreeing with those thoughts, Professor Feldman added that “what is needed is more enforcement and more mobilisation, as well as more research”.

Find out more

Hopscotch in the Archives: Reflections from the Ben Uri Researcher in Residence

Leave a reply

This post was contributed by Dr Lily Ford, of Birkbeck University of London and researcher in residence at the Ben Uri Gallery. This article was originally posted on the Creativeworks London blog

Dr Lily Ford

Dr Lily Ford

In the summer of 1915, a group of Eastern European Londoners gathered around a charismatic newly arrived émigré and pledged their commitment to nurturing and disseminating Jewish art.

By the end of a July night at a Whitechapel restaurant, they had officially formed the ‘Jewish/Yiddish National Decorative Art Association Ben Ouri’. The Ben Uri has lasted a century, weathering changes of location, of emphasis, of context and indeed of name, yet always held together and steered by the passion and dedication of a small group of enthusiasts.

When it comes to finding out more about the society’s early years – my job as Researcher in Residence – the drawbacks of this endeavour are evident. Who archives a labour of love? All those involved in setting up the Ben Uri were already keeping their own small businesses going, and the society’s meetings were scheduled around busy lives, on Saturdays and Sundays, often at 9pm.

The minutes of these meetings were recorded at times conscientiously, and at times sporadically, with gaps going from a few months to a few years in duration. They were written in haste, and, between 1916 and 1924, in Yiddish. The society’s paperwork from this period – letters on headed paper, pamphlets and programmes, even major endeavours such as the inaugural Ben Uri album – survives in a haphazard manner. It is impossible to trace all the society’s activities in this period; instead, I play a game of hopscotch, leaping over the gaps to land on the primary and secondary evidence that is available, and inferring links and connections.

Judah Beach

The First World War cannot be blamed for this patchy record-keeping, though of course Ben Uri’s first three years of existence took place in a London deeply affected by events on the continent: not just the conflict with Germany, but the Russian Revolution and its implications for British attitudes towards the large minority of Eastern European Jews mostly resident in the capital.

It was I think, far more that Ben Uri committee members were always too tied up in the here and now – how to expand the art collection, who to appeal to for funds, where to find an institutional home – to bother with archival protocols. The one exception to this, and the reason that any work at all can be done on the society’s early years, is the Polish-born tailor and founder committee member Judah Beach.

It was Beach who penned the minutes that have, somewhat miraculously, come back to the Ben Uri after spending decades at YIVO in New York, where they were sent in the 1970s. Beach, too, was the only member in this period to collect cuttings about the society from London’s Yiddish press, which he pasted into an album, alongside scraps of correspondence and fragments of speeches. And it was Beach who offered the society’s growing collection of artworks a home, at his own residence in West Hampstead, during the many years between 1916 and 1929 when the Ben Uri had no base of its own.

Increasing access to the society’s history

Luckily for us, Beach had his counterparts as time went on, and the Ben Uri’s archive for the fascinating period of the 1930s, and for the second half of the twentieth century, is more complete. There is significant scholarship in existence already on these later periods, much of it the work of curator Rachel Dickson and head of collections Sarah MacDougall. The writer and historian David Mazower conducted his own investigations into the mysterious founder of the society, Lazar Berson, which took him across Europe to find the only known example of the Ben Uri’s first publication from 1916.

But recent developments have enabled increased access to the society’s history: over the last eighteen months the archive has been closely scrutinised and catalogued by a dedicated archivist, Claire Jackson, and the Yiddish material has been translated by a team of postdoctoral experts under Dr Helen Beer at UCL. This has provided a rich set of resources from which to reconstruct some of the stories and circumstances around the activities of these art-loving Londoners one hundred years ago.

The challenges

This is not to say that researching the Ben Uri is without its frustrations. From a documentary perspective, the founding members are difficult to profile. While some, notably the jeweller and Yiddish writer Moysheh Oved, published several books including an autobiography, in English, most of the active figures were less prolific, and less confessional.

Beach’s only published output, apart from contributions to Ben Uri catalogues, is a collection of Yiddish short stories (which had previously appeared in Yiddish literary journals), not available in English. Some of the names which appear most often in the minutes as keen contributors to the society’s activities between 1916 and 1926 – Miss Margolis, Madame Dr Zarchi, Mr Chechanover, Mr Lush – are absent from any other records I have been able to consult.

The challenges of transliteration from Yiddish add a layer of confusion: not only is the English spelling of a name decided by the translator or record keeper, and may vary each time it appears, but furthermore, Ben Uri members signed off with different versions of their names depending on the context. Judah Beach was the anglicised form of Yehudah Pshibish, which Beach sometimes used, but a third version of his name, Bietsch, is used in relation to his Yiddish literary work. Moysheh Oyved or Oved was a penname adopted in 1917 by Edward Good, who regretted having anglicised his name from Edouard Goodak when he set up his first business in London, but both Good and Oved are used interchangeably in Ben Uri’s minutes. Indeed one programme from 1922 lists him twice, as Edward Good, Ben Uri treasurer, and as Moysheh Oyved, poet.

Ben Uri’s brand of ‘national’ Jewish art

In a way, Good/Oved’s inhabiting of both roles tells us much about the complexion of the Ben Uri at this time, as an outlet for an immigrant community necessarily focused on establishing a secure living and a social and economic place in London. It was an outlet that permitted the expression of a deeply felt cultural and spiritual identity, one different to that of the more assimilated and non-Yiddish speaking Anglo-Jewish community of Central, North and West London.

Ben Uri’s brand of ‘national’ Jewish art was not straightforwardly Zionist, though the society maintained a relationship with the Bezalel School of Art in Jerusalem, and considered at one low point in the 1920s sending the collection there for good. It was by nature not religious, and always in contention with the orthodox Jewish veto on figurative art. It was, rather, concerned with expressing, as Lisa Tickner has noted, ‘a secular Yiddish culture under diasporic conditions’[1].

It is this remit, of furnishing a diasporic community with the cultural resources necessary to formulate and reflect upon identity, that makes the Ben Uri such a relevant organisation today. The present situation, in which the Ben Uri celebrates its centenary with a six-month residency in Somerset House, was certainly beyond the expectations of the founding committee, though not beyond its ambitions.

I hope that my own research, to be presented in July, will help reveal some of the fascinating conditions under which this story began one hundred years ago.

Out of Chaos: Ben Uri: 100 Years in London, runs from 2 July – 13 December 2015 at Somerset House.

 

Dr Lily ford did her PhD, ‘Airminded: the cultural impact of flight and aerial photography in 1920s Britain’, in Birkbeck’s Department of History of Art, finishing in March 2015. As a Birkbeck postgrad student she was eligible to apply for a Researcher-in-Residence grant in December 2014.

This allows an early career researcher from any of Creativeworks London’s partner universities to team up with a cultural institution/SME and spend up to six months carrying out a research project together.

The Ben Uri gallery was seeking a researcher to look into some newly translated archival material and find out more about their foundation 100 years ago in Whitechapel, and since the period mapped well with that of Dr Ford’s PhD research it was an ideal opportunity to explore a totally different aspect of early twentieth century cultural life.

She has been working with the gallery’s archive part time since February and will finish in July, when she will deliver a paper with her findings in their exhibition space and, with them, look into publication possibilities for a long article. 

Creativeworks London brings new collaborative research opportunities to London’s creative businesses. Comprising thirty-eight London-based universities, colleges, museums, libraries and archives, together, the members have unrivalled skills and expertise that can be of benefit to businesses who are interested in exploring areas such as entrepreneurial development, emerging markets, new ways of engaging London’s diverse audiences, and the development of digital resources and media content.

Find out more:

[1] Lisa Tickner. Modern Life and Modern Subjects: British Art in the Early Twentieth Century. New Haven and London: Yale University Press (2000) p. 165.

Combating Match-Fixing

Leave a reply

This post was contributed by Noy Shani, The London Economic. The article was first posted at The London Economic on June 8

Match-fixing awareness is on the increase and a multitude of organisations are now involved in tackling the problem. The London Economic’s Noy Shani was at a special match-fixing seminar at Birkbeck, University of London and came back optimistic.

Match-fixing---FootballNew-found optimism was at its peak. Just ten minutes before the panellists and guests took their seats at the basement level of the Birkbeck lecture hall, the formerly ‘immortal’ Sepp Blatter had shocked the world of football with his decision to resign as the president of FIFA.

Seems like the perfect timing just ahead of a seminar talk about combating match-fixing in football, doesn’t it?

Two years ago Birkbeck started engaging with UEFA, the European Union and FIFPro, the world union for professional football players, and following some fascinating insight and research in the field, a new and glossy looking booklet titled ‘Don’t Fix It – Protect Our Game’ has been introduced.

The special seminar on a warm London evening featured special panel guests Kevin Carpenter – independent legal and sports consultant; Andrew Harvey – a Visiting Research Fellow from Birkbeck Sport Business Centre; and Tony Higgins – FIFPro’s European Division Vice-President.

Kicking off the panel discussion, Andy Harvey, said: “At the local level it is important to understand the main driving forces behind match-fixing.  Most of the time these are not discussed at all.  The best prevention was and remains education.

“Players need to have much more understanding about their responsibilities.  Those that get involved in match-fixing regret it afterwards, they realise they let their family members, team-mates and fans down.”

Match-fixing affects and distorts sporting events and lives worldwide.  It reduced the number of spectators watching football in countries such as Malaysia, had players banned for life and left a stain on team-mates and fans.

Worse of all, it still continues around the globe and is spreading.

Combating match-fixing

1,500 players from nine European countries were surveyed as part of the recent research.

There are of course differences between one country and another, says Tony from FIFPro.

“In some countries players do not have contracts, they are considered as entertainers and this can affect how they are getting paid.”

You will probably admit it.  If your employer stops paying you for months end, pretty soon you will be looking for some ‘side projects’.  Players in fact do the same.

“Some will resort to match-fixing so they can feed their families,” adds Tony.

No wonder than that the number one reason for players to be involved with match-fixing according to the survey is financial difficulties, topping the list with 27%, ahead of the fact it’s ‘easy money’, coming second with 22%.

Enforcement or education?

Billions are spent to combat issues like drug use and related transactions.  It does not necessarily eliminate drugs.  This model also applies to match-fixing.  Enforcement alone just won’t cut it.

There is a great deal of outside pressure on footballers from Eastern European or less developed countries, including sometimes threats to their or their loved ones’ lives, said Tony.

This is, he said, the reason why FIFPro got more involved.

So, what could still stop match-fixing?  The players surveyed believe that the number one factor, with 23%, is their personal honesty and integrity. This strengthens the view that educational programmes to combat match-fixing are the way forward.

The sort of people players trust the most in delivering such schemes are player unions and national associations.  However, reporting mechanism have proved basic or not practical, whilst organisations that do run designated hotlines don’t have enough trained staff to deal with the size of the problem.

Even if these were in place, would players actually trust them?  This remains doubtful.

36% of those surveyed said that they will not report an approach to fix a match or any suspicious of match-fixing because of lack of trust and confidentiality.

Confusion left, right and centre

The more I listen to the discussion it becomes apparent that stakeholder advocacy and involvement are required to make combating match-fixing a success.

Bear in mind, when I say success, I mean relative success.  After all, how would you even go about measuring it?  Counting the number of calls to ‘match-fixing hotlines’?

Confused?  There are many more contradicting issues also between the legal and regulatory aspects of combating match-fixing, says panellist Kevin Carpenter.

“Is there a justification for a life ban for footballers involved in match-fixing?  In criminal law you are not easily put in prison for long periods.

Carpenter also reckons that legal education in the field is too minimal.

“People don’t know how to prosecute it.  It is new and still vague.  And how do you enforce match-fixing cross borders if activity in one country affect yours?  It is not straightforward.  Some of the people involved don’t have the powers to issue warrants for instance.”

Where does this leave us?

Match-fixing and similar threats to football take many forms and involve complex sets of behaviour from many participants.

The problem cannot be resolved by one organisation or person, as the research suggests.

It requires an approach involving government, referees, fans, the European Union, clubs, FIFA and UEFA, law enforcement entities and universities.

Andy, Kevin and Tony believe there is much more awareness nowadays, more than there ever was.

“Five years ago there were a few cases but now it seems more prominent because society, football players, fans, clubs and authorities are no longer ignorant to the consequences of match-fixing,” they all agreed.

And with that awareness, they are all optimistic that match-fixing can be handled differently and more successfully than it ever was before.  I will take their word for it.

For more information on match fixing and the involvement of Birkbeck, Unviversity of London in sports  management, visit www.sportbusinesscentre.com

Find out more