DISCIPLINARY KNOWLEDGE: HISTORY, EVOLUTION, AND CONTEMPORARY SCIENTIFIC STATUS

This chapter offers an overview of the study of sectarianism in the Middle East. It argues that, because it has often been treated as an area studies topic, the study of sectarianism has long been absent from the mainstream sociological literature. By bridging between disciplinary knowledge production and the area-specific research agenda, this chapter proposes some conceptual and methodological notes to advance our understanding of the sectarian phenomenon in the Middle East. This chapter is a call for the development of a “sociology of sectarianism,” one that moves beyond Middle East exceptionalism to study the phenomenon of sectarianism in its complexity by locating it historically and analyzing it globally within the broader interlocking systems of social stratification.

Download Full-text

The “Legitimacy of Chinese Philosophy” Debate and the Global Extension of Disciplinary Knowledge

The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Political Theory ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190253752.013.23 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 699-717

Author(s):

Leigh K. Jenco

Keyword(s):

Political Theory ◽

Chinese Philosophy ◽

Academic Discipline ◽

Disciplinary Knowledge ◽

Ongoing Debate ◽

Comparative Political Theory ◽

Chinese Thought ◽

Forms Of Knowledge

This chapter argues that the ongoing debate about the “legitimacy of Chinese philosophy” (Zhongguo zhexue hefaxing) raises issues relevant to the globalization of knowledge. On its surface, the debate concerns whether Chinese thought can be meaningfully understood as “philosophy”; more generally, it asks how, in the very process of enabling their translation into presumably more “modern” languages of intellectual expression, the terms of a specific academic discipline shape and constrain the development of particular forms of knowledge. The debate reveals the power inequalities that underlie attempts to include culturally marginalized bodies of thought within established disciplines and suggests the range of alternatives that are silenced or forgotten when this “inclusion” takes place. Even contemporary invocations of “Chinese philosophy” are often unable to comprehend the stakes of the debate for many of its Chinese participants, who link the debate to enduring questions about the capacity of indigenous Chinese academic terms to compete successfully with Euro-American ones. These debates may illuminate questions currently motivating comparative political theory.

Download Full-text

An Experimental Test of Life History Evolution using Drosophila melanogaster and Hyla regilla

The American Naturalist ◽

10.1086/283967 ◽

1982 ◽

Vol 120 (1) ◽

pp. 26-40 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Hugh J. Barclay ◽

Patrick T. Gregory

Keyword(s):

Drosophila Melanogaster ◽

Life History ◽

Experimental Test ◽

Life History Evolution ◽

Hyla Regilla ◽

History Evolution

Download Full-text

Anthroposophic Medicine: A Short Monograph and Narrative Review—Foundations, Essential Characteristics, Scientific Basis, Safety, Effectiveness and Misconceptions

Global Advances in Health and Medicine ◽

10.1177/2164956120973634 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 ◽

pp. 216495612097363

Author(s):

Ricardo R Bartelme

Keyword(s):

Narrative Review ◽

Anthroposophic Medicine ◽

Potential Contribution ◽

Human Beings ◽

Holistic View ◽

Medline Search ◽

Starting Point ◽

Whole Person ◽

Scientific Status ◽

Safety Effectiveness

Introduction Anthroposophic medicine is a form of integrative medicine that originated in Europe but is not well known in the US. It is comprehensive and heterogenous in scope and remains provocative and controversial in many academic circles. Assessment of the nature and potential contribution of anthroposophic medicine to whole person care and global health seems appropriate. Methods Because of the heterogenous and multifaceted character of anthroposophic medicine, a narrative review format was chosen. A Health Technology Assessment of anthroposophic medicine in 2006 was reviewed and used as a starting point. A Medline search from 2006 to July 2020 was performed using various search terms and restricted to English. Books, articles, reviews and websites were assessed for clinical relevance and interest to the general reader. Abstracts of German language articles were reviewed when available. Reference lists of articles and the author’s personal references were also consulted. Results The literature on anthroposophic medicine is vast, providing new ways of thinking, a holistic view of the world, and many integrating concepts useful in medicine. In the last ∼20 years there has been a growing research base and implementation of many anthroposophical concepts in the integrated care of patients. Books and articles relevant to describing the foundations, scientific status, safety, effectiveness and criticisms of anthroposophic medicine are discussed. Discussion An objective and comprehensive analysis of anthroposophic medicine finds it provocative, stimulating and potentially fruitful as an integrative system for whole person care, including under-recognized life processes and psychospiritual aspects of human beings. It has a legitimate, new type of scientific status as well as documented safety and effectiveness in some areas of its multimodal approach. Criticisms and controversies of anthroposophic medicine are often a result of lack of familiarity with its methods and approach and/or come from historically fixed ideas of what constitutes legitimate science.

Download Full-text