Search results

In this paper, the authors argue that fine wines can be considered art and as such can be awarded luxury status. The authors discuss the processes of artification, through which such wines are recognized as art (Shapiro and Heinich, 2012), and heritagization, in which the cultural differentiation implicit in the concept of terroir (the various elements of a microclimate that contribute to a wine's specific attributes) connects a wine to its history and provenance. The investigation focuses specifically on fine wines from Bordeaux and Burgundy, which are renowned worldwide for their depth and flavors. What traits are intrinsic to the definition of art, and what social processes culminate in transforming an entity from nonart to art?

It is a conceptual paper that requires blending several viewpoints to present the authors’ own viewpoints.

This study aims to address the above questions and argues that fine wines, as a source of aesthetic pleasure, are themselves an art form.

The implications for producers of fine wines and other artisanal products seeking to elevate brand awareness are discussed.

The findings of this study are of interest to wine scholars as well as wineries. They provide evidence as to how artification occurs.

While there are papers that address the issue of artification and heritagization individually, the authors bring to bear the importance of both concepts on specific wine regions in France: Burgundy and Bordeaux.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the institutional mechanisms for combating doping in high-level sport, including the trend toward using legalistic frameworks, and how they contribute to notions of deviance.

A historical approach informed by recent criminological adaptations of genealogy was utilized, using primary and secondary sources.

Three time periods involving distinct frameworks for combating doping were identified, each with their own advantages and limitations: pre-1967, post-1967 up until the creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency in 1999, and post-1999.

This study contextualizes the recent legalistic turn toward combating doping in sport, bringing greater understanding to the limitations of present anti-doping practices.

This paper aims to trace the relational and material ways in which workplace teams come together (or fail to) in the provision of patient care.

Six interprofessional scholars brought their unique theoretical and disciplinary lenses to understand the contextualized experiences of the patient and the team. Adopting a critical narrative inquiry (CNR) approach, the experiences of 19 participants were documented as they interacted in the care of an elderly patient over a three-week period. Actor network theory constructs enabled the analysis of multiple artefacts implicated in the interactions to learn of their contribution to the enactment of her care.

The study gives empirical insights about ways in which knowledge circulates amongst the workplace and how systemic structures may impede effective and quality patient care. Various types of knowledge are held by different team members, and both individuals and materials (e.g. technologies) can influence the way those knowledges are shared (or not).

Focusing on a rich data set surrounding one patient documented as theatre serves pedagogical purposes and serves as a shared “boundary-breaking” object to interrogate from multiple stakeholder perspectives. CNR provides for recursive, dynamic learning as readers critically consider experiences within their own contexts.

Despite research that documents competing political, systemic and economic goals, sedimented policies and practices persist in ways that undermine care goals.

Tackling the urgent issue of an aging population will require expanding collaboration (for planning, research and so on) to include a broader set of stakeholders, including operational, administrative and post-discharge organizations. Attention to social infrastructure as a means to assemble knowledges and improve relationships in the care process is critical.

Building a boundary-breaking shared object to represent the data offers a unique opportunity for multiple stakeholder groups to enter into dialogue around barriers to workplace interaction and collaboration progress, linking problems to critical perspectives.

In this conversation, renowned critical posthuman scholar Rosi Braidotti offers insights regarding what the posthuman turn means for intimate scholarship and broader questions of subjectivity. She discusses the methodological challenge of post-anthropocentrism for the humanities and stresses the need to move to a process ontology, which entails a non-essentialistic understanding of subjects as in process and connected up to networks of human and non-human elements, yet simultaneously situated and accountable. While acknowledging the possibilities of “auto” forms of research for keeping subjects politically located, she emphasizes the importance of practicing an outward-facing intimate scholarship – one not focused on one’s own pain and ego, but rather, one connected up and out, an affirmative becoming-intimate with the world, with otherness and diversity. To do so, she suggests we must think differently by experimenting with non-linearity, associative thinking, and transdisciplinarity. We must nurture intergenerational connections both for continuity of important knowledge and to create alternatives, all while using theory as a tool for counter-knowledge production.

This final chapter pulls together some of the observations and findings from the others in the book, and presents a final argument for undoing the ‘affectless consensus’ of research. It synthesizes a number of ‘affective scenes’ that are present across the various chapters, and uses these to build an argument for why affect should not be understand as simply synonymous with emotion. It concludes with a proposal for an ‘affective project’ to build off the findings that are found in the book.

In this chapter I present a pedagogic encounter with an intense affective scene that occurred at a critical time in my PhD research. The encounter, which I call ‘what happened to data and me’, acts as an illustrative example of what may come from seeking out ways to account for contingency, complexity and contiguity by focussing on affect as a researchable phenomenon and affect as a productive force in a (post)qualitative inquiry. At the heart of ‘what happened to data and me’ is an unravelling of self, prompted by the realization of an onto-epistemological conflict between what my research was trying to do and how I, the researcher, was trying to go about the research. I invite the reader to return with me to ‘the snap’ and together witness how a snap experienced as a pedagogic encounter can create the conditions for transformative learning to occur – a learning that transforms an individual's relations with the world rendering them more capable. In conveying how ‘what happened to data and me’ rendered us (data, me, my supervisors, and more) more capable, I discuss how entering into artful relations with data can reconfigure the researcher–researched–research in affirming ways. I propose artful inquiry to do data in a way that accentuates the art of data, creating the conditions for data to transgress into da(r)ta. I conclude with six insights that researchers interested in ‘the post’ may like to consider. The intention is that hindsight will become foresight, not only highlighting what transgressive data can do but also drawing attention to the potential of critically and creatively engaging with the (post)qualitative inquiry.