Introduction to the Special Section on the Role of Psychology in Capacity Evaluations.

2005 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aida Saldivar
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
pp. 002200942110067
Author(s):  
Soenke Kunkel

Setting the stage for the special forum, this introduction points to the centrality of science diplomacy activities within many current foreign policy concepts around the world. It also points to the lack of historical perspective within many current academic debates about science diplomacy. Suggesting the value of such a perspective, the introduction then draws attention to a number of fruitful contributions that histories of science diplomacy may make to contemporary history. These include: a better understanding of how entanglements between science, foreign policy, and international relations evolved over the twentieth century; a refined understanding of the workings of foreign relations and diplomacy that sheds light on the role of science as an arena of foreign relations; new insights into the Cold War; a globalizing of perspectives in the writing of contemporary history; a new international focus on widely under-researched actors like universities, science movements, science organizations, and science academies; a focus on new themes that range from global environmental problems to issues like cultural heritage. The remainder of the introduction then delineates some of the shared assumptions and findings of the essays and then briefly introduces each contribution to the special section.


2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 290-310
Author(s):  
Borut Klabjan

This article is part of the special section titled From the Iron Curtain to the Schengen Area, guest edited by Wolfgang Mueller and Libora Oates-Indruchová. This article discusses local cultures of remembrance of Yugoslav partisans fallen during World War II in Trieste, now part of Italy, and investigates the role of memory activists in managing vernacular memory over time. The author analyses the interplay between memory and the production of space, something which has been neglected in other studies of memory formation. On the basis of local newspaper articles, archival material, and oral interviews, the essay examines the ideological imprint on the local cultural landscape, contributing to a more complex understanding of memory engagement. The focus is on grassroots initiatives rather than state-sponsored heritage projects. This article argues that memory initiatives are not solely the outcome of national narratives and top–down ideological impositions. It shows that official narratives have to negotiate with vernacular forms of memory engagement in the production of a local mnemonic landscape.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Buckingham Shum

This editorial introduces a special section of the Journal of Learning Analytics, for which Neil Selwyn’s keynote address to LAK ’18 has been written up as an article, “What’s the problem with learning analytics?” His claims and arguments are engaged in commentaries from Alfred Essa, Rebecca Ferguson, Paul Prinsloo, and Carolyn Rosé, who provide diverse perspectives on Selwyn’s proposals and arguments, from applause to refutation. Reflecting on the debate, I note some of the tensions to be resolved for learning analytics and social science critiques to engage productively, observing that central to the debate is how we understand the role of abstraction in the analysis of data about teaching and learning, and hence the opportunities and risks this entails.  


2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Moses ◽  
Eve Rosenhaft

According to the sociologists Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens, modern societies have become increasingly preoccupied with the future and safety and have mobilized themselves in order to manage systematically what they have perceived as “risks” (Beck 1992; Giddens 1991). This special section investigates how conceptions of risk evolved in Europe over the course of the twentieth century by focusing on the creation and evolution of social policy. The language of risk has, in the past twenty years, become a matter of course in conversations about social policy (Kemshall 2002). We seek to trace how “risk” has served as aheuristic toolfor understanding and treating “social problems.” A key aim of this collection is to explore the character of social policy (in the broadest sense) as an instrument (or technology) that both constructs its own objects as the consequences of “risks” and generates new “risks” in the process (Lupton 2004: 33). In this way, social policy typifies the paradox of security: by attempting literally to making one “carefree,” orsē(without)curitās(care), acts of (social) security spur new insecurities about what remains unprotected (Hamilton 2013: 3–5, 25–26). Against this semantic and philological context, we suggest that social policy poses an inherent dilemma: in aiming to stabilize or improve the existing social order, it also acts as an agent of change. This characteristic of social policy is what makes particularly valuable studies that allow for comparisons across time, place, and types of political regime. By examining a range of cases from across Europe over the course of the twentieth century, this collection seeks to pose new questions about the role of the state; ideas about risk and security; and conceptions of the “social” in its various forms.


Transfers ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 108-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Hannam

In this brief commentary on the articles in this special section, I would like to relate them to more contemporary mobilities issues as well as the wider mobilities theoretical literature. In so doing, I seek to highlight and interrogate a key theme, namely Asian innovation in mobilities and processes of cultural diffusion. As the editors of the special section suggest, historically the introduction of new transportation technologies and their ensuing mobilities practices became symbols of modernity for much of South and Southeast Asia under colonialism. They also emphasize that such innovations were highly contested and thus they suggest that the mobility of mobilities is seldom a smooth process, but, rather, laden with negotiations and struggles over power. Furthermore, the editors highlight that Asia should not be represented as an imitator of Western mobility and modernity but rather seek to place innovation agency in Asian hands. The articles prompt me to ask a further question about the role of non-human actors in these processes: Is it more a question of placing innovation in the vehicles of mobility themselves?


2007 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grazyna Wieczorkowska ◽  
Jerzy Wierzbinski ◽  
Eugene Burnstein

1995 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-477
Author(s):  
Philip Ethington ◽  
Eileen McDonagh

This special sectionof Social Science Historylaunches a series of five articles illustrative of what we believe is an eclectic center in the development of historical studies of institutions and policies, often termed the “new institutionalism.” The new institutionalism emerged in the early 1980s in reaction to “a long season in which social forces and processes were the predominant topics of study” (Orren and Skowronek 1986). While the precise role of institutions varies according to the practitioner, hallmarks of the new institutionalism include a portrayal of institutions as semiautonomous actors; a contextualization of institutions within sociohistorical processes (and vice versa); a recognition of inefficiency, contingency, and accident in history; and a recognition of the relative autonomy of ideas and symbolic action in historical development (March and Olsen 1984, 1989; Krasner 1984; Smith 1988; Katznelson 1992). As is expected of new paradigms, the entry of the new institutionalism into the intellectual community has been marked by an array of polemics against its predecessors, “old” schools defined by “old institutionalism,” behaviorism, and structural functionalism. It has also generated a wave of spirited counterattacks (Mitchell 1991; Bendix et al. 1992; Ethington and McDonagh forthcoming).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document