“Navigating the Beautiful Tension”

The book’s conclusion draws together the seven ethnographic studies by arguing that evangelical worship is better understood as a theological culture than as a static structure. In contrast to the scholarship Kathryn Tanner and Molly Worthen, which understands the culture of Christianity and/or evangelicalism as an essentially contested concept, this chapter ultimately affirms the perspective of theologians John Webster and Kevin Vanhoozer, who understand evangelicalism eschatologically, as a unified diversity. When congregations gather in the presence of the living God, they are dislocated and re-established, changed into something they were not before the event began. Consequentially, corporate worship is not a peripheral “extra” tacked on to a fully formed spiritual/political/cultural movement, but rather the crucible in which congregations forge, debate over, and enact their unique contributions to the American mosaic known as evangelicalism.

What is meaningful research and how should we measure it?

We discuss the trend towards using quantitative metrics for evaluating research. We claim that, rather than promoting meaningful research, purely metric-based research evaluation schemes potentially lead to a dystopian academic reality, leaving no space for creativity and intellectual initiative. After sketching what the future could look like if quantitative metrics are allowed to proliferate, we provide a more detailed discussion on why research is so difficult to evaluate and outline approaches for avoiding such a situation. In particular, we characterize meaningful research as an essentially contested concept and argue that quantitative metrics should always be accompanied by operationalized instructions for their proper use and continuously evaluated via feedback loops. Additionally, we analyze a dataset containing information about computer science publications and their citation history and indicate how quantitative metrics could potentially be calibrated via alternative evaluation methods such as test of time awards. Finally, we argue that, instead of over-relying on indicators, research environments should primarily be based on trust and personal responsibility.

Global Studies

A review of introductory international relations, international studies, and global studies textbooks reveals that each field defines itself differently: one in terms of its central focus on the diplomatic and strategic relations of states, the second more broadly by including transnational transactions of all kinds, and the third focusing on globalization as both an object of analysis and a lens through which to view nearly all phenomena. However, in reading past the definitional chapters there are clear overlaps—most notably with regard to each introductory textbook’s treatment of globalization. Close examination of recently published introductory textbooks and those well into multiple editions reveals that globalization is treated as a fundamental aspect of each of the three fields. While both International Relations (IR) and International Studies (IS) scholars have contributed significantly to further broadening of both IR and IS in order to become increasingly “global,” other scholars have moved to create a new field of study called Global Studies (GS). This new field of GS developed in the 1990s as scholars from multiple disciplines began to study the many dimensions of globalization. While globalization remains an essentially contested concept, most scholars accept as uncontroversial that it refers to the many strings that connect the world such that pulling on one string in one place will make a change somewhere else. Globalization’s central dynamics include interconnectivity, reconfiguration of space and time, and enhanced mobility. GS is the only field that places the contested concept of globalization at the center of its intellectual initiative.

The Structural Signification of Terrorism

This chapter argues that one of the central debates within Terrorism Studies will never be resolved: that of an agreed upon, objective definition. Several Terrorism Studies scholars believe that Terrorism Studies would be better off if it arrived at an objective definition for terrorism. Yet, this chapter demonstrates that how terrorism is largely understood is dependent upon various social structures, including gender, race, and heteronormativity. Thus, a thicker understanding of terrorism would acknowledge that it is an essentially contested concept or as an ‘utterance’. An agreed upon definition would present only a thin understanding, erasing the social structures that shape our understanding. Therefore, the chapter relies upon the concept of ‘aphasia,’ or calculated forgettings, from Critical Race theory. This concept holds that Western thought and society has purposefully forgotten how race and racialisation work to deny people of colour many things, including rationality, intelligence, and agency. Gender and heteronormativity operate in a similar way. Such operations infect all areas of life—the purpose of this chapter is to look at terrorism.

Reality, fundamentality, grounding (and cognate notions)

The notion of grounding is one of the central notions in the debates concerning ontological dependence in contemporary metaphysics and metametaphysics. In this paper we have carried out a comparative analysis of grounding, supervenience, reality, fundamentality, and cognate notions, and we have demonstrated what their role should be in the context of neo-Aristotelian hierarchical ontologies and the project of metaphysical foundationalism. We have also sketched out some basic outlines of what Kit Fine calls ?the pure logic of ground? by establishing certain formal desiderata which grounding ought to meet in order to successfully carry out its specific ontologico- explanatory role. It is finally shown that grounding suffers from similar problems and shortcomings as supervenience, and that a satisfactory solution of those problems cannot be found by looking to metaphysical primitivism according to which grounding is a sui generis, primitive and unanalysable notion which is nonetheless essential for metaphysics. Even though grounding might turn out to be an ?essentially contested concept?, in the end we suggest how the aforementioned problems might be met by means of holistic considerations of grounding within the broader context of the entire (meta)metaphysical theory.

Populism as an Essentially Contested Concept or: On the Dangers of Centrism

The term «populism» is most often used polemically, and notably as a pejorative term, denoting an actual or potential threat to democracy. If, however, all problems and challenges to democracy are projected into an image of the populist danger, we encounter nothing but «centrism» as a mirror-image of «populism». Theories of «radical democracy» propose a more analytical concept of «populism», denoting the political dynamics of social conflict, i.e. how popular frustrations, claims and demands are articulated. In this perspective, political «agonism» is vital to democracy. My own take on these questions: «Democracy» is an essentially contested concept, but if we a central feature is that the «people» («demos») is the basis for the legitimacy of its institutions and policies, we must recognize that conflicts over the symbolic representation of «the people» are fundamental. To dismiss the problem is as dangerous as to claim that it is solved.