Search results

"Americans have become resigned to seeing Congress vote money for porkbarrel projects of all kinds-roads, dams, post offices, military installations-in the districts of influential legislators. In recent years Congress has, almost without public notice, extended this form of vote-buying and pandering into a new domain: science. Where formerly scientific funding proposals were evaluated by outside experts on the basis of merit, there is now an increasing consideration of congressional districts and "fair" geographical distribution. In this ground-breaking volume, Joseph P. Martino offers a critical examination of special-interest funding and the danger it poses to the integrity of American society as a whole, as well as to its scientific component. Science Funding is distinguished by its comprehensive approach to the structural and historical background of the current situation. It examines the history of science funding from the early twentieth century through present, public vs. to taxpayers, instances of fraud, and the effects of government funding for research in universities. Martino's survey demonstrates conclusively that government has been inefficient in its funding capacity and that the shortcomings are inherent: political criteria for the support of science, congressional micromanagement, freezing out of innovative ideas, and the favoring of massive projects-Big Science-over small, but significant experimental programs. In his concluding chapter Martino provides an agenda for new thinking on the funding of science. He proposes alternatives that suggest a plurality of approaches is preferable to the current monolithic model, and shows how industrial support, philanthropy, and contributions from the public can be made more effective. Science Funding is a major work on the interaction of science, politics, and society. It will be of interest to sociologists, policymakers, and political scientist, and the research science community."--Provided by publisher.

AbstractThe article discusses the term "recursive," which has multiple uses in the political science literature. The two principle uses are reviewed, with attention to precedent and technical meanings, and examples are provided of mathematical concepts and their application to political science literature. The problem of divergent meaning is addressed through a survey of potential for reconciliation or possible substitute terminology.

AbstractThe work of southern sociologist Thomas Jackson Woofter Jr. (1893–1972) is frequently cited by American historians, but his contribution to government policy on agriculture in the New Deal, Social Security in the 1940s, and demography in the Cold War remains underappreciated. He left the University of North Carolina to direct government research on rural relief in the 1930s, Social Security enhancement during and after World War II, and foreign population and manpower projections during the Cold War. Contributing to the delivery of essential programs in key agencies, he participated in internal and external debates over policy and social attitudes between 1930 and 1960. Woofter worked for the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the Works Progress Administration, the Farm Security Agency, the Federal Security Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency, improving data-gathering and assisting transitions in federal policymaking. This article assesses his role in those agencies, using official records, other primary materials, and secondary sources.

The work of southern sociologist Thomas Jackson Woofter Jr. (1893-1972) is frequently cited by American historians, but his contribution to government policy on agriculture in the New Deal, Social Security in the 1940s, and demography in the Cold War remains underappreciated. He left the University of North Carolina to direct government research on rural relief in the 1930s, Social Security enhancement during and after World War II, and foreign population and manpower projections during the Cold War. Contributing to the delivery of essential programs in key agencies, he participated in internal and external debates over policy and social attitudes between 1930 and 1960. Woofter worked for the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the Works Progress Administration, the Farm Security Agency, the Federal Security Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency, improving data-gathering and assisting transitions in federal policymaking. This article assesses his role in those agencies, using official records, other primary materials, and secondary sources.

The transformations undergone by research and science in the name of the so called "knowledge economy" cover the decisions of scientific policies and the "management" of research, and also the meaning of scientific activities (devoted to innovation) and even more fundamentally the very structure of the sciences (transformed to technosciences). The science that is contributing to capitalist competitiveness (and to the current economic crisis) is not the same as that which would be able to contribute "to the conception and democratic carrying out of another form of globalization and another European project". However, this is not self-evident, and it needs to be thought about since it is not simply a matter of returning to the science of the 20th century that opened the way to technoscience.

Procedural environmental justice refers to fairness in processes of decision-making. It recognises that environmental victimisation, while an injustice in and of itself, is usually underpinned by unjust deliberation procedures. Although green criminology tends to focus on the former—distributional dimension of environmental justice—this article draws attention to its procedural counterpart. In doing so, it demonstrates how the notions of justice-as-recognition and justice-as-participation are jointly manifested within its conceptual boundaries. This is done by using the consultation process that occurs with indigenous peoples on proposed oil sands projects in Northern Alberta, Canada, as a case study. Drawing from 'elite' interviews, the article illustrates how indigenous voices have been marginalised and their Treaty rights misrecognised within this consultation process. As such, in seeking to understand the procedural determinants of distributional injustice, the article aims to encourage broader green criminological scholarship to do the same.

Experimenting with What is philosophy? / Isabelle Stengers -- Facts, ethics and event / Mariam Fraser -- Irony and humour, toward a Deleuzian science studies / Katie Vann -- Between the planes : Deleuze and social science / Steven D. Brown -- A plea for pleats / Geoffrey C. Bowker -- Every thing thinks : sub-representative differences in digital video codecs / Adrian Mackenzie -- Cybernetics a nomad science / Andrew Pickering -- Cinematics of scientific images : ecological movement-images / Erich W. Schienke -- Social movements and the politics of the virtual : Deleuzian strategies / Arturo Escobar and Michal Osterweil -- Intensive filiation and demonic alliance / Eduardo Viveiros de Castro.

Over the past few decades, significant advances have been made in publicengagement with, and the democratization of, science and technology. Despite notable successes, such developments have often struggled toenhance public trust, avert crises of expertise and democracy, and build more socially responsive and responsible science and innovation. A central reason for this is that mainstream approaches to public engagement harbor what we call "residual realist" assumptions about participation and publics. Recent coproductionist accounts in science and technology studies (STS) offer an alternative way of seeing participation as coproduced, relational, diverse, and emergent but have been somewhat reluctant to articulate what this means in practice. In this paper, we make this move by setting out a new framework of interrelating paths and associated criteria for remaking public participation with science and democracy in more experimental, reflexive, anticipatory, and responsible ways. This framework comprises four paths to: forge reflexive participatory practices that attend to their framings, emergence, uncertainties, and effects; ecologize participation through attending to the interrelations between diverse public engagements in wider systems; catalyze practices of anticipatory reflection to bring about responsible democratic innovations; and reconstitute participation as constitutive of (not separate from) systems of technoscience and democracy.

The idea that the colonial past keeps surfacing in contemporary political situations has been turned by some post(-)colonial theoreticians and militant writers into an irrefutable statement of fact. Yet this analytical stance is supported by little empirically grounded research. A host of creative new literature about modern age "colonial situations" indeed help us reach a better, more nuanced understanding of what colonial domination was all about. But they often fail to capture the vernacular, non-European historicity of the "colonial encounter". In the case of Southeast Asia, local political societies were engaged in state-formation processes long before the arrival of the Europeans: In Insulindia and in Indochina, there actually existed local imperial societies, into which the European colonial order of things became embedded. Viewed from this perspective, the "colonial situation" was a moment in long-term Euro-Asiatic imperial histories that mixed together numerous and sometimes contradictory understandings of imperial power and prowess. Talking about imperial hegemonies hence might help us escape modernist analytical dead-ends. ; La place prise par l'hypothèse - souvent devenue postulat - de la " permanence " ou de la " rémanence " contemporaines des imaginaires et des pratiques de domination propres aux " situations coloniales " invite à essayer d'esquisser un premier état des lieux du renouveau de l'historiographie du fait colonial. Après avoir passé en revue les principales lignes de force de cette historiographie, l'on s'efforcera de montrer, au regard du cas sud-est asiatique, que la compréhension des dynamiques du moment colonial des sociétés politiques noneuropéennes gagne à être raccordée à une interrogation comparatiste sur la notion d'hégémonie impériale. Il s'agira plus précisément de rappeler que les sociétés politiques d'Asie du Sud-Est vivaient, à la veille de leur " rencontre coloniale " avec l'Europe, sous le régime de modes spécifiques d'entrée en modernité étatique - et, ce faisant, de ...

The idea that the colonial past keeps surfacing in contemporary political situations has been turned by some post(-)colonial theoreticians and militant writers into an irrefutable statement of fact. Yet this analytical stance is supported by little empirically grounded research. A host of creative new literature about modern age "colonial situations" indeed help us reach a better, more nuanced understanding of what colonial domination was all about. But they often fail to capture the vernacular, non-European historicity of the "colonial encounter". In the case of Southeast Asia, local political societies were engaged in state-formation processes long before the arrival of the Europeans: In Insulindia and in Indochina, there actually existed local imperial societies, into which the European colonial order of things became embedded. Viewed from this perspective, the "colonial situation" was a moment in long-term Euro-Asiatic imperial histories that mixed together numerous and sometimes contradictory understandings of imperial power and prowess. Talking about imperial hegemonies hence might help us escape modernist analytical dead-ends. ; La place prise par l'hypothèse - souvent devenue postulat - de la " permanence " ou de la " rémanence " contemporaines des imaginaires et des pratiques de domination propres aux " situations coloniales " invite à essayer d'esquisser un premier état des lieux du renouveau de l'historiographie du fait colonial. Après avoir passé en revue les principales lignes de force de cette historiographie, l'on s'efforcera de montrer, au regard du cas sud-est asiatique, que la compréhension des dynamiques du moment colonial des sociétés politiques noneuropéennes gagne à être raccordée à une interrogation comparatiste sur la notion d'hégémonie impériale. Il s'agira plus précisément de rappeler que les sociétés politiques d'Asie du Sud-Est vivaient, à la veille de leur " rencontre coloniale " avec l'Europe, sous le régime de modes spécifiques d'entrée en modernité étatique - et, ce faisant, de pointer les phénomènes d'enchâssement des historicités impériales. Analyser le moment colonial de l'Insulinde ou de l'Indochine non plus comme l'unique point d'origine des entrées en modernité (étatique, capitaliste, individualiste), mais comme une séquence d'une histoire impériale ''eurasiatique'' de " longue durée ", c'est en effet se donner les moyens de penser l'histoire des sociétés asiatiques dans son irréductible spécificité.

Political science has developed rapidly in the last half-century, but this has posed at least three serious problems. First, almost no attention has been given to political activity in private bodies: the scope of political analysis is narrowed as a result. Second, the connection between political science and 'policy analysis' is wholly unclear, which raises the danger that political science may want to cover too much or too little! Third, political science has always been concerned with norms, yet aims to be a science: this is no easy relationship. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractA common complaint from political scientists involved in the study of religion is that religious issues have been largely overlooked by political science. Through a content analysis of leading political science and sociology journals from 2000 to 2010, this article considers the extent of this claim. The results show that political science publications involving religious topics have been significantly fewer than those engaging with subjects typically regarded as being more central to the discipline, and markedly less numerous than religious articles in leading sociology publications. Where political science publications have engaged with religious issues, these articles have also focused on a limited number of subject areas and been concentrated in specific disciplinary subfields. The proportion of articles covering religion has shown no real increase since the turn of the century. These findings underpin calls for political scientists to take religious issues more seriously.