Diverse Subjects of Interpenetrations - Nilüfer Göle, Islam and Secularity: The Future of Europe’s Public Sphere (Durham, Duke University Press, 2015) and Musulmans au quotidien : Une enquête européenne sur les controverses autour de l’islam (Paris, La Découverte, 2015).

2016 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 501-505
Author(s):  
Murat Akan
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
The Future ◽  
Duke University

Write–Reach–Repeat

2020 ◽  
pp. 1083-1093
Author(s):  
Robin M. Boylorn
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Public Sphere ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Future ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter considers the role, importance, and impact of public intellectualism on the future of qualitative research. The chapter argues that the move toward technology and the public dissemination of information via the internet requires a shift in how and what we research with an expressed intention of reaching a broader and nonacademic audience. The chapter considers the relationship between the private and public sphere, and the so-called “bastardization” of intellectualism to explain the role and rise of public intellectualism in qualitative research. By considering issues such as personal subjectivity, accountability, representation, and epistemological privilege, the chapter discusses how public contexts inform qualitative research and, conversely, how qualitative research can inform the public.

scholarly journals Deliberating across Difference

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Afsoun Afsahi
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Public Sphere ◽  
Perspective Taking ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Sharia Law ◽  
The Future ◽  
Knowledge Gains ◽  
To Come

This paper examines two cases of deliberation on the issue of religious arbitration in Canada: first, the Sharia law debate in Ontario (deliberation in the larger public sphere); and second, a deliberation on religious arbitration in British Columbia (deliberation in a small-scale structured setting). Relying on both secondary and original data, this article demonstrates that while the Sharia law debate failed to fulfill the key functions of a deliberative engagement, the small-scale deliberation was able to achieve all three functions: participants had the chance to express their opinions; there was ample dialogue and communication evident by increased empathy, perspective-taking ability, and knowledge gains; and finally, participants were able to come to a decision, however broad, together. Through this comparison, the article highlights key barriers to deliberation across differences and concludes with some suggestions for carrying out such engagements in the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document