Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present the modeling of industrial–postindustrial transition in Russian society. The very special part of this process concerns the relations between lordship and bondage. The relations between Lordship and Bondage in a context of so-called Master–Slave dialectic can elucidate a way to the knowledge-based society as a kind of modern capitalistic society.

An author uses a complex of methods. He applies a phenomenological approach, mixed with the dialectics and analytical approach. Phenomenological approach presupposes the neediness of attention on a work of the conscious actions within formation of the social experiences. The modification of dialectics helps to make the comprehension of the history of social relations as a game of forces in self-consciousness, which nowadays bases on the attitudes between leaders and led people. A variant of analytic methodology helps to understand each problem as a puzzle.

As a result, author finds a spirit of the processes within development of knowledge-based society and innovative economy depends on so-called Master–Slave dialectic. In Europe, Master–Slave dialectic caused the leading role of scientists. In Russia, scientists depended on the Government and played secondary role in economy.

Research is the philosophical treatise, which demonstrates the speculative evaluation of industrial–postindustrial transition in Russian society.

Practical implications is the constructing the prognosis of the development of the Russian society.

Research can help to improve the understanding of the mechanisms of leadership in society.

Originality of the paper is the reconstruction of social forms, which caused the social progress in Russia.

In this chapter I argue that education cannot escape being influenced by the economic, political and cultural effects of globalization. Through an examination of the policies of national governments, agenda of international organizations such as the World Bank and UNESCO, the global practices of privatization, accountability and managerialism, I demonstrate that education is being used as a tool of neo-liberal economic reform, a process that increases inequalities and marginalizes the already unheard voices. I argue that any analysis of globalization and its impact on higher education requires stepping back from all interactions and practices and asking basic questions about what these terms imply, why they function the way they do, and whose interests they serve. A critical analysis of the transformation of universities and thus the knowledge produced is essential as it affects and infiltrates our very consciousness. I argue that while higher education is being restructured under the neo-liberal economic rationality it is important for educators to find out what will be gained and what will be lost before going ahead with such restructuring. I also contend that the neo-liberal economic rationality of globalization has framed the restructuring of education in such a manner that its function has changed from production of knowledge to production and management of wealth. As a result of accepting the dominant discourse of the globalization agenda without much critical analysis or debate regarding its consequences, education has lost its basic function of producing democratic citizens.

This study aims to demonstrate what myths of and about science are reproduced in this popular cultural work (movie – “Oppenheimer”). This is done by examining the unconscious hegemonic positions supported by the reproduction of stereotypical and mythical images of science.

Content/Text Analysis: The conceptual analysis of a cultural text – a film (“Oppenheimer”) – through a theoretical apparatus (B. Latour’s theory).

The film demonstrates its reproduction of three distinct elements. Firstly, it exhibits classic scientistic clichés pertaining to technoscience. Secondly, it highlights the replication of the individualized monomyth about the (super) hero, leading to the exclusion of the intricate conditions of technoscience’s existence. Lastly, the film aligns with the Californian ideology, as proposed by Barbrook.

The value of the text is twofold: (1) To show that the classical approaches of Bruno Latour are still relevant. (2) To show what hidden premises and myths about technoscience are being propagated through a work of pop culture (the film “Oppenheimer”) and, in effect, to show what kind of influence of cultural hegemony is at work here.

This article traces the regimes of worth that defined energy for centuries as a productive force of human and animal labor, an understanding that transformed in the 18th century to an “industrial-energy” regime of worth supporting an economy of mass production, consumption, and profit and more recently one centered on market forces and price. Industrial and market energy and the conventions and institutions that support them are currently in a period of discursive and material ferment; they are being challenged by different higher order principles of worth. We discuss eight emergent energy justifications that argue what kind of energy is – and is not – in the best interests of society.

Purpose – The chapter outlines mixed methods as a recursive and co-operative approach to research. In doing so, it challenges the dominant conception of ‘real’ mixed methods research as requiring the use of methods from both qualitative and quantitative frameworks by outlining not only logistic and pragmatic issues requiring the attention of researchers but also the underlying philosophical tensions inherent in mixed method designs.

Design/methodology/approach – The process of designing a mixed methods project that investigated the sociological and phenomenological impact of running shoes is outlined with reference to the various pragmatic and epistemological considerations of the project.

Findings – Many researchers require mixed methods to draw on both quantitative and qualitative techniques. However, this chapter demonstrates that such an understanding of mixed methods marginalises critical and interpretivist techniques. It is argued that studies of sport and physical culture have frequently used more than one research method. However, in order for these to be considered mixed methods studies, an explicit attempt is required to connect each technique of data collection and analysis, regardless of the research paradigm in which they operate.

Research limitations/implications – The limitations of mixed methods designs are discussed in relation to pragmatic and logistic concerns as well as the difficulty of connecting methods that present different underlying philosophical assumptions.

Originality/value – This chapter demonstrates the design of a mixed methods project from the initial process of identifying a research problem through to data collection, analysis and publication.

In recent years there has been much discussion about the relevance of the discipline of anthropology to the various emergent discourses on the environment. Among those researching in the area, reason for concern has been confirmed by a failure to make themselves heard as experts over the growing din of the other branches of social research passionately pleading the case for the relevance of their respective disciplines. This is evidenced to some degree by the lack of anthropological literature in the field of environmentalism and comes into stark relief when compared with the extensive treatment of the area given by the political sciences. This chapter seeks to focus on reactions by anthropologists to this dearth of environmentally concerned research within the discipline over the past decade. The debate over the issues raised by this discussion has evolved principally between a small number of dedicated anthropologists, and although it is now spilling out into the wider anthropological community, it is from these scholars work that a path forward has been constructed.

Effective standards are at once technical specifications for various people, processes, and products, as well as world-changing phenomena. Put simply, standards are one means by which we determine who we are and how we shall live. Alternatively, standards are more than technical specifications; effectively implemented standards are part of the social infrastructure that makes a given type of society possible. This, in turn, suggests that – if we are to collectively decide what kind of society and what kind of agri-food sector we want – the recent turn to standards (and away from government regulation) cannot be left in the hands of a few experts, but must be subjected to democratic deliberation. This is especially true if the scope of standards is to be expanded so as to include problems such as climate change and sustainability. These are “wicked problems” in that all the parameters cannot be specified, there is no single optimum to be attained and “…there is no criterion system nor rule which would tell you what is correct or false” (Rittel, 1972).

Any reasonably advanced practice is a blend of rational thinking, thinking structured by concepts and numerical representations rendering the world static and immovable, and intuitive thinking, a mode of knowing operating “in‐between” concepts and representations and, therefore, are apprehending the fluid and fleeting nature of being. When moving from being a novice to an expert practitioner, the actor must both appropriate rational thinking and increasingly, as experience is acquired, draw on intuitive thinking. For the novice, the concern is however that intuitive thinking is complicated to articulate or represent but is primarily acquired through years of experience and practice. The paper seeks to discuss practice as a term that includes both these two elements of thinking.

The paper uses empirical examples from nursing work, financial trading, and scientific research to further develop the concept of practice.

The paper suggests that “skilled coping” of expert practitioners are examined as a gradual appropriation and combining of rational and intuitive thinking. The difficulty of becoming a skilled practitioner is, inter alia, to acquire inarticulate know‐how through collaboration with experienced peers.

The paper seeks to discuss the concept of practice based on process philosophy underlining the distinction between rational and intuitive thinking, yet emphasizing their mutual constitution in the domain of practice. The concept of practice is thus anchored in a solid theoretical framework capable of exploring some of the difficulties involved in acquiring expert skills.