Isolating the Collective Self

1995 ◽  
pp. 309-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell Spears
Keyword(s):  
Collective Self

Searching for Markers; collective self-appraisal

1995 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-108
Author(s):  
KEITH HUMPHREYS
Keyword(s):  
Collective Self

Knowledge Commons

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Madison ◽  
Brett M. Frischmann ◽  
Katherine J. Strandburg
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Arrangement ◽  
Information Resources ◽  
Community Management ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Informal Governance ◽  
Institutional Approach ◽  
Knowledge Commons ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
Institutional Contexts ◽  
Commons Institutions

This chapter describes methods for systematically studying knowledge commons as an institutional mode of governance of knowledge and information resources, including references to adjacent but distinct approaches to research that looks primarily to the role(s) of intellectual property systems in institutional contexts concerning innovation and creativity.Knowledge commons refers to an institutional approach (commons) to governing the production, use, management, and/or preservation of a particular type of resource (knowledge or information, including resources linked to innovative and creative practice).Commons refers to a form of community management or governance. It applies to a resource, and it involves a group or community of people who share access to and/or use of the resource. Commons does not denote the resource, the community, a place, or a thing. Commons is the institutional arrangement of these elements and their coordination via combinations of law and other formal rules; social norms, customs, and informal discipline; and technological and other material constraints. Community or collective self-governance of the resource, by individuals who collaborate or coordinate among themselves effectively, is a key feature of commons as an institution, but self-governance may be and often is linked to other formal and informal governance mechanisms. For purposes of this chapter, knowledge refers to a broad set of intellectual and cultural resources. There are important differences between various resources captured by such a broad definition. For example, knowledge, information, and data may be different from each other in meaningful ways. But an inclusive term is necessary in order to permit knowledge commons researchers to capture and study a broad and inclusive range of commons institutions and to highlight the importance of examining knowledge commons governance as part of dynamic, ecological contexts

Implicit collective self-esteem: A comparative analysis of Gelao and Han teenagers

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (12) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Hongyun Lyu ◽  
Ningjian Liang ◽  
Zhen Guo ◽  
Rogelio Alejo Rodriguez
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Group ◽  
Implicit Association Test ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
Association Test ◽  
Implicit Association ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
Implicit And Explicit ◽  
Collective Self Esteem ◽  
The Relationship

In this study we examined the differences in implicit collective self- esteem between Gelao and Han teenagers, using the Implicit Association Test. We also explored the relationship between participants' implicit and explicit collective self-esteem with the Implicit Association Test and the Explicit Collective Self-Esteem Scale. Participants were 169 teenagers residing in Gelao regions in China. The results showed that both Gelao and Han participants had an implicit collective self-esteem effect (i.e., tended to associate their own ethnic group with positive words and the other ethnic group with negative words), and this effect was significantly higher among Gelao than among Han participants. Further, scores on the importance-to-identity subscale of the Explicit Collective Self-Esteem scale were significantly higher in the Gelao versus the Han group. The correlation coefficients between implicit and explicit collective self-esteem for both groups were very low. The significance of the study findings is discussed.

Last Woman Standing

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. E. Smyth
Keyword(s):  
Star System ◽  
Women's Issues ◽  
Political Equality ◽  
Equal Pay ◽  
Career Opportunities ◽  
American Myths ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
Women’S Careers ◽  
The Media ◽  
Studio Era

Today, when the media puts studio-era Hollywood and feminism together, the answer is usually Katharine Hepburn. But during her career at RKO and MGM, she did not discuss women’s issues regarding equal pay, career opportunities, or political equality. However, she did state flatly in 1933, “I intend to speak my mind when I please, despite movie traditions,” setting her independence against the Hollywood establishment. She remained uninterested in working with other Hollywood women on-screen or in recognizing the advantages of promoting women’s careers through publicity networks off the set. Katharine Hepburn endures as a product of American myths about pioneering individualism, the Hollywood star system, and the studio-era film industry’s ambivalent investment in strong women. But if, as historian Nancy Cott has argued, “Pure individualism negates feminism because it removes the basis for women’s collective self-understanding or action,” then Hepburn was no feminist. This chapter unravels her myth.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document