scholarly journals Researching Scientific Structures via Joint Authorships—The Case of Virtual 3D Modelling in the Humanities

2021 ◽  
pp. 151-168
Author(s):  
Sander Münster
Keyword(s):  
International Cooperation ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Specific Area ◽  
Science Research ◽  
3D Modelling ◽  
Science Methods ◽  
Structural Level ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Key Players ◽  
Scientific Fields

AbstractOne of the topics addressed by e-science research is the measurement of academic knowledge production based on electronic data and its relevance in defining the academic landscape. The author employs e-science methods to research cooperative authorships and scientific structures in a specific area of applied e-sciences: virtual 3D modelling in the humanities. Based on the findings, possibilities for cross-disciplinary and international cooperation are discussed. The number of international publications and average number of authors involved in each publication are lower than those found in other scientific fields. Moreover, research indicates that in the humanities, 3D modelling is relatively new and still emergent. Besides such general indications, several key players as people and institutions which interconnect groups of researchers could be identified on a structural level.

Academic knowledge production and prefigurative politics

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (267-268) ◽  
pp. 163-167
Author(s):  
Beatriz P. Lorente
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Structural Characteristic ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Means And Ends ◽  
Sociology Of Language ◽  
Prefigurative Politics ◽  
Access Model

Abstract Inequality is the pervasive structural characteristic of academic knowledge production. To dismantle this inequality, the challenge raised by prefigurative politics which is based on an ethos of congruence between means and ends must be taken up by the International Journal of the Sociology of Language. The IJSL’s peer review process, its academic conventions and its access model can potentially be spaces for concrete practices that prefigure parity in academic knowledge production.

scholarly journals Considering Indigenous Research Methodologies: Critical Reflections by an Indigenous Knower

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph P. Gone
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Ways Of Knowing ◽  
Indigenous Studies ◽  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Research Methodologies ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Indigenous Epistemologies ◽  
Indigenous Research Methodologies ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
University Settings

Within the domain of academic inquiry by Indigenous scholars, it is increasingly common to encounter enthusiasm surrounding Indigenous Research Methodologies (IRMs). IRMs are designated approaches and procedures for conducting research that are said to reflect long-subjugated Indigenous epistemologies (or ways of knowing). A common claim within this nascent movement is that IRMs express logics that are unique and distinctive from academic knowledge production in “Western” university settings, and that IRMs can result in innovative contributions to knowledge if and when they are appreciated in their own right and on their own terms. The purpose of this article is to stimulate exchange and dialogue about the present and future prospects of IRMs relative to university-based academic knowledge production. To that end, I enter a critical voice to an ongoing conversation about these matters that is still taking shape within Indigenous studies circles.

scholarly journals The Ladies Vanish?

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 519-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Luo ◽  
Julia Adams ◽  
Hannah Brueckner
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
History Of Sociology ◽  
American Sociology ◽  
Representation Of Women ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Disciplinary History ◽  
History Of

AbstractMany notable female sociologists have vanished from the canonical history of American sociology. As the most influential crowd-sourced encyclopedia, Wikipedia promises – but does not necessarily deliver – a democratic corrective to the generation of knowledge, including academic knowledge. This article explores multiple mechanisms by which women either enter or disappear from the disciplinary record by analyzing the unfolding interaction between the canonical disciplinary history of sociology and Wikipedia. We argue that the uneven representation of women sociologists as (1) remembered, (2) neglected, (3) erased or, finally, (4) recovered is shaped by the emerging interactional space of knowledge production.

scholarly journals Managing by measuring: Academic knowledge production under the ranks

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Nylander ◽  
Robert Aman ◽  
Anders Hallqvist ◽  
Anna Malmquist ◽  
Fredrik Sandberg
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Academic Knowledge

scholarly journals Indigenous Knowledges and Scholarly Publishing

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-40
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Boyd
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Sound Source ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
White Male ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Intended Purpose ◽  
Peer Reviewers

At its core, academic knowledge production is predicated on Western notions of knowledge historically grounded in a Euro-American, White, male worldview. As a component of academic knowledge production, scholarly publishing shares the same basis of Whiteness. It excludes knowledge that doesn’t conform to White, Western notions of knowledge, forces conformity to (and therefore reinforcement of) a Western standard of writing/knowledge, and leads to a reverence of peer-reviewed literature as the only sound source of knowledge. As a tool of scholarly publishing and the editorial process, blind peer review, though perhaps well-intentioned, is fraught with problems, especially for BIPOC researchers and writers, because it fails in its intended purpose to drastically reduce or eliminate bias and racism in the peer review and editorial processes; shields peer reviewers and editors against accusations of bias, racism, or conflicts of interest; and robs BIPOC, and particularly Indigenous, writers and researchers from having the opportunity to develop relationships with those that are reviewing and publishing their work.

scholarly journals Editorial: Joining the Conversation

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 197-201
Author(s):  
PAUL RAE
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
International Federation ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Annual Conference ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Contemporary Theatre ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Native Speakers Of English

In my previous editorial, I made reference to what Theresa Lillis and Mary Jane Curry call ‘literacy brokering’ amongst non-native speakers of English who seek to publish in anglophone academic journals. The term ‘literacy’ makes sense in the context, and, as I noted, the practice is hardly exclusive to those whose first language is not English. However, as Aoife Monks of Contemporary Theatre Review and I planned a New Scholars session on academic publishing for this year's annual conference of the International Federation for Theatre Research (IFTR, with which this journal is affiliated), a supplementary way of thinking about academic knowledge production came to mind: as conversation. And it is a conversational mode that wends its way through the articles presented in this issue of Theatre Research International.

Reconsidering the concept of difference: A proposal to connect education and neuroscience in new ways

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lena Aronsson
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Educational Practice ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Mutual Transformation ◽  
Educational Neuroscience ◽  
Mutual Knowledge ◽  
Communication Problems ◽  
Neuroscience Research ◽  
Interdisciplinary Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Fields

Connecting neuroscience and education is a desire in contemporary society, related to the recurring calls for education to become more evidence-based. Research in educational neuroscience strives towards such interdisciplinary knowledge production and to an enhanced interaction between neuroscience research and educational practice. However, various problems and difficulties in achieving these collaborations are often reported. Discrepancies, hierarchies, misconceptions and communication problems can be described as creating a ‘discourse of difficulty’. The aim of this paper is to trace the specific difficulties that have created this discourse, and to problematize these difficulties in ways that enable new conceptions of what might be entailed by interaction and mutual knowledge development between the fields of neuroscience and education, and between academic theory and educational practice. The most significant difficulty is caused by a binary understanding of the concept of difference in relation to understanding the fields. Instead of understanding the fields in opposition to each other, I will suggest an understanding that implies difference emerging in each of the collaborating fields as the self-differing effects of the encounter. In the concluding discussion, I will argue that an understanding of the concept of difference as a process of mutual transformation can be essential for reciprocity and bi-directionality in collaborations. Instead of producing contradictions and hierarchies between scientific fields and between theory and practice, such an understanding of difference might facilitate an investigation of the polarizations that always position something as of lesser value, and ultimately, creates the gaps that collaborations want to bridge.

Multiple temporalities of knowing in academic research

2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Smith
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Functional Relationship ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Ways Of Knowing ◽  
Ethnographic Research ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Academic Researchers ◽  
Crisis Of Modernity ◽  
The Relationship

Based on ethnographic research at five Czech universities from 2011 to 2013, this article explores how academics make sense of and claims to three qualitatively distinct temporal regimes in which their activities as knowledge producers are inscribed: disciplinary time, career time and project time. This conceptual framework, a modification of Shinn’s distinction between disciplinary, transitory and transversal knowledge-production regimes, seeks to replace images of competition and succession between regimes with images of their recombination and intersection. It enables an interpretation of the empirical findings beyond the indigenous complaint that excessive speed is compromising the quality of knowledge production. The relationship between projects, careers and disciplines emerges from the study as problematic rather than synergistic. In this respect the paper does not contradict the claim by critical theorists that we are witnessing the disintegration of what used to be a functional relationship between the multiple temporalities of academic knowledge production based on standardized career scripts, nor the related claim that this may reflect a deeper crisis of modernity as a predictive regime for the production of futures. It proposes, however, that transversal projects can still be mediators of ‘disciplinary respiration’ insofar as their timeframes are available for variable calibration commensurate with the increasingly heteronomous ways of knowing and knowledge routines that academic researchers practise.

Tsugaru Gaku as Area Studies: Research plasticity and researcher hybridity

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Rausch
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Specific Area ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Area Studies ◽  
The Future ◽  
Social Science Researcher ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
Social Scientific

This review essay speaks to the crisis of Area Studies, offering a view from the field in the form of a review of Tsugaru Gaku (Tsugaru Studies) as a specific Area Studies research case. After presenting an overview of the work of social science researchers working in Japan, both foreign and Japanese, the essay turns to major questions articulated in the literature of Area Studies regarding the purpose, character and future of Area Studies. By reviewing the multi-dimensional and combinative implications in the process and dissemination of his own social science research work together with consideration of the work of Japanese social scientists conducting research in rural Japan and publishing in Japanese, the author positions such ‘domestic,’ place-based sociological and anthropological research as a vital contribution to the future of Area Studies. Capitalizing on social scientific research that can contribute to Area Studies research requires a view of the ‘plasticity of research.’ Further, recognition of the ‘hybridity of the Area Studies researcher,’ both as the trained Area Studies specialist as well as a ‘domestic social science researcher’ capable of theory, methodology and analysis, as well as dissemination of Area Studies research originating in a specific place and in a specific language, is vital to the future of Area Studies research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document