Search results

In this chapter the authors analyse different forms of gender and class discrimination in Spanish academic institutions. Androcentrism in terms of the structures of academic institutions, the meritocratic system, the rhythms and contents of work present barriers for women advancing into positions of leadership. The intersectionality of gender and class provides different kinds of hurdles and possibilities for women and men from middle-class and working-class backgrounds. Relationships between (mostly male) supervisors and men and women researchers tend to strengthen men's capabilities of developing their own scientific aspirations and claims to leadership, while women tend to become subordinated supporters of their supervisors' objectives. Power structures dominated by men's values have the effect that some women do not perceive leadership positions as desirable.

There is growing public interest in alternatives to intellectual property including, but not limited to, prizes and government grants. We collect various historical and contemporary examples of alternative incentives, and show when they are superior to intellectual property. We also give an explanation for why federally funded R&D has moved from an intramural activity to largely a grant process. Finally, we observe that much research is supported by a hybrid system of public and private sponsorship, and explain why this makes sense in some circumstances.

The roles that ethnographers adopt in their fieldwork are “perhaps the single most important determinant of what he [or she] will be able to learn” (McCall & Simmons, 1969, p. 29). My purpose in this paper is to demonstrate that these roles can be in a state of rapid flux, depending not only on who the researcher is interacting with, but also on a complex system of constantly changing settings for those interactions.

Higher education as a field of study has been relatively ignored by social scientists. Yet it is a growing area of research, especially applied research, as higher education itself becomes more visible and important within advanced ‘knowledge economies’. Higher education is seen by some to hold the key, at least in part, to the achievement of both greater wealth and greater social equity; the former through the creation of new knowledge and the production of new ‘knowledge workers’, and the latter through the provision of opportunities for all to develop, contribute to and benefit from the greater wealth. For others, however, the role of higher education is seen to lie more in the reproduction of existing social inequalities.

The US Federal government is a potential source of support for advancing Library and Information Science (LIS) through funding experimentation, innovation, and demonstration. Most agencies are not as much interested in advancing the research front in LIS as they are in LIS contributions that advance other fields. The full potential of federal funding to impact LIS is far from realized. LIS researchers should be aware of each agency's mission as well as the types of research that each one supports. Many people contribute to research agendas but the most influential are researchers themselves. Becoming more successful in winning grants will require researchers to become better grant writers and to collaborate with people outside LIS.

Networking, gatekeeper access, understanding of “localized talks,” and jargon are revealed to be influential factors on the quality and richness of case study research (CSR) data. Rapport between the researcher and the interviewee not only affect the depth of the data collected but also the credibility and completeness of the final research output. This chapter discusses these features of CSR by employing two different CSR studies. The chapter provides practical insights to promote the interviewee's confidence in revealing sensitive data, through a three-step procedure.

I am persistently struck by how easy it seems in academic discourse to polarize positions and people. Ming-chu Hsu, a graduate student at Indiana University, recently wrote an essay discussing western academic discourse and its propensity to pit people's positions against one another as if this were the sole way to have a legitimate intellectual claim. I have worries about being a participant in an interchange with those rules because I do not, in the end, believe in them. In my paper, I am trying to explore what it means to have partisan (feminist) concerns and commitments in the world when I do ethnography. I am sure there is fallibility in my perspective and I welcome the dialogue on non-polarized grounds. My paper was an opportunity to reflect using Hammersley's position as a mirror for my own. And the mirror talked back! It is in this context that I offer the following comments on Hammersley's response to my paper.