Search results

Technological advances directly affect the human being's material existence and its self-understanding. The Enlightenment's intentional agent is, due to specific technologies, undergoing a fundamental transformation. Yet, if the ideological basis of this understanding, the justness of social luck, is not rejected, then a new understanding of the "subject" which would avoid unfreedom in the territorialization of the digital world is made impossible. This book offers a novel Hegelian reading of the posthuman discipline in order to propose a new subjectivity.

Intro -- Dedication -- Epigraph -- Introduction -- Prologue: My Nightmare -- Part I: Four Futures -- 1. Terminal World: The Domination of Glass Slabs -- 2. Prosthetics: The New Bionic You -- 3. Animism: Living with Social Robots -- 4. Enchanting Everyday Objects -- Part II: Six Human Drives -- The Dialectic Interplay: Fiction and Invention -- Drive #1. Omniscience: To Know All -- Drive #2. Telepathy: Human-to-Human Connections -- Drive #3. Safekeeping: Protection from All Harm -- Drive #4. Immortality: A Long and Quantified Life -- Drive #5. Teleportation: Friction-Free Travel -- Drive #6. Expression: The Desire to Create -- Part III: The Design of Enchantment -- The Extraordinary Capability of Human Senses -- Technology Sensors and Enchanted Bricolage -- The Seven Abilities of Enchantment -- 1. Glanceability -- 2. Gestureability -- 3. Affordability -- 4. Wearability -- 5. Indestructibility -- 6. Usability -- 7. Loveability -- Five Steps on the Ladder of Enchantment -- Part IV: Enchanted Systems -- Transformer Homes -- Collaborative Workplaces -- Human-Centered Cities -- Six Future Fantasies -- A Metaphor and a Macro Trend -- Photographs -- Acknowledgments -- About David Rose -- Notes -- Index -- Photograph and Illustration Credits -- Copyright.

In this user-friendly introduction, European and American experts in the field join forces to explain what panel studies can achieve and to illustrate some of the potential pitfalls in the construction and analysis of panel data. Household panel studies provide one of the most significant national and international resources for analysing social and economic change. This is an essential and accessible introduction for those contemplating the use of panel studies for the first time and will be an invaluable resource for both practising researchers and the commissioners of research

Drawing on the "evidence-based" (Sutherland et al. 2013) versus "evidence-informed" debate (Adams & Sandbrook 2013), which has become prominent in conservation science, I argue that science can be influential if it holds a dual reference (Lentsch & Weingart 2011) that contributes to the needs of policy makers whilst maintaining technical rigor. In line with such a strategy, conservation scientists are increasingly recognizing the usefulness of constructing narratives through which to enhance the influence of their evidence (Leslie et al. 2013; Lawton & Rudd 2014). Yet telling stories alone is rarely enough to influence policy; instead, these narratives must be policy relevant. To ensure that evidence is persuasive alongside other factors in a complex policy-making process, conservation scientists could follow 2 steps: reframe within salient political contexts and engage more productively in boundary work, which is defined as the ways in which scientists "construct, negotiate, and defend the boundary between science and policy" (Owens et al. 2006:640). These will both improve the chances of evidence-informed conservation policy. ; This work is taken from a PhD project in the Department of Geography at the University of Cambridge and was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number ES/I901957/1) and by a Homerton College Charter Scholarship. I thank S.E. Owens, C. Sandbrook, T. Pryke, H. Allen, and reviewers for their comments on previous drafts. ; This is the final published version. It first appeared online in Conservation Biology, 2014, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12444/abstract;jsessionid=ED92470E2D83FDD64FF1ADA394FE9635.f03t02.

Drawing on the "evidence-based" (Sutherland et al. 2013) versus "evidence-informed" debate (Adams & Sandbrook 2013), which has become prominent in conservation science, I argue that science can be influential if it holds a dual reference (Lentsch & Weingart 2011) that contributes to the needs of policy makers whilst maintaining technical rigor. In line with such a strategy, conservation scientists are increasingly recognizing the usefulness of constructing narratives through which to enhance the influence of their evidence (Leslie et al. 2013; Lawton & Rudd 2014). Yet telling stories alone is rarely enough to influence policy; instead, these narratives must be policy relevant. To ensure that evidence is persuasive alongside other factors in a complex policy-making process, conservation scientists could follow 2 steps: reframe within salient political contexts and engage more productively in boundary work, which is defined as the ways in which scientists "construct, negotiate, and defend the boundary between science and policy" (Owens et al. 2006:640). These will both improve the chances of evidence-informed conservation policy.