Suchergebnisse

PurposeCynthia Cockburn's research spans some three decades and has covered several major and distinct themes – technology and technical change, organizational equality policies and practices, and more recently conflict studies – but she has consistently studied gender from a feminist perspective and it is this interest that binds her work together. She has published more than ten books, numerous book chapters, articles, pamphlets and reports. Aims to find out more about this person.Design/methodology/approachThis article is based on an interview with Cynthia Cockburn conducted in March 2006.FindingsHer book In the Way of Women, published in 1991, stands out as having had enormous influence – it is still widely cited today, making it one of the classic texts and essential reading for those researching the dynamics of inequalities in organizational contexts. This article deals largely with the themes and methodological issues posed by Cynthia's early‐mid 1990s research focusing on organizational equality.Originality/valueThis is an update on this influential researcher's work and ideas on women, equality and social science research.

Examines female political elites under the Soviet system, during perestroika, and since Aug. 1991 when their numbers have declined. Translated from Obshchestvennye Nauki i Sovremennost, no. 1, 1994. Some focus on a female economic elite.

Word-slam was used with our high school urban students as instrument and method to elicit engagement with learning and develop agency through personal storytelling. The word-slam text (as it appears on YouTube and in hard-copy format as well) was chosen due to its being a personal story and an alternative, artistic and critical form of text that our students could relate to directly as the format and content were relevant to their lives and experiences. By using the text as a mentor text and studying the author's craft together, students were able to write, rewrite and develop their own word-slam stories, carving out a space for themselves to be seen and heard.

The aim of this paper is to present and analyse the conceptual and definitional polysemy of the term 'culture', as well as to emphasize some of the contemporary sociological and interdisciplinary concepts, theories and understandings of culture. This is an important topic in social sciences, actualized by contemporary theories of globalization, glocalization and discussions concerning global culture, contemporary transnational anthropological approaches to culture, sociological theories of modernity and modernization, "post-colonial discourse", "strong program" in cultural sociology, contemporary postmodern theoretical turns such as "cultural turn", "spatial turn", "complexity turn". In this regard, various new scientific and theoretical concepts, notions and understandings of culture in the "global age" are developing. All of them have abandoned the traditional definition of culture as unique, homogeneous, closed, static, territorialized, national, and now emphasize the understanding of culture as a diverse, hybrid, heterogeneous, open, fluid, dynamic, deterritorialized and transnational. However, in contemporary debates concerning multiculturalism, identity politics, politicization of culture, and cultural rights, it remains unclear, and it is still an open question as to way the term of culture is be defined, whether the traditional concept of culture is used, or whether culture is understood in a new way, which again updates its conceptual and definitional polysemy. In that sense, this paper points out the importance of defining the term of culture and the need to explain different usages and concepts of culture in contemporary social sciences.Keywords: culture, globalization, post-modern theoretical turn.

Préface / P. Deschanel -- Introduction / R. Salleilles -- Le droit public : sa conception, sa méthode / F. Larnaude -- La méthode applicable à l'étude du droit administratif / H. Berthélemy -- Les méthodes en économie politique / H. Truchy -- Le rôle social et économique des règles de la procédure civile / A. Tissier -- La méthode en droit commercial / E. Thaller -- La méthode en droit international privé / A. Pillet -- Les procédés d'élaboration du droit civil / F. Gény -- De la méthode du droit criminel / E. Garçon. ; Mode of access: Internet.

This volume provides a unique open inter-disciplinary dialogue across the Humanities and Social Sciences to further our understanding of the phenomenon of regions and regionalism in a globalized world both at the theoretical and empirical levels. What comprises a region? What are the different regional dynamic processes that take place? What is the relationship between the regional and the global? What role does identity building play? Bringing together scholars from various disciplines within and across the Social Sciences and the Humanities to reflect on these questions, the book explores how regions are imagined, constructed, understood, and explained in different academic disciplines. Each chapter addresses these common questions and uses its own disciplinary lenses to answer them. In addition, the volume offers interesting reflections on the academic borders constructed in the study of regions, thus demonstrating the importance of obtaining insights from both social scientists and humanities scholars in order to better understand the relevance of regions in a complex and globalized world. An important work for scholars and postgraduate students in many fields, including political science, international relations, sociology, economics, geography, history and literature, as well as for those interested in regionalism and area studies.

In the United States, the "common law," that regulates ethics review is being overhauled. We ask how UK University Research Ethics Committees (U-RECs), following the American model, have been able to shape social-science research without much commotion, and whether it is time for change. Despite the misbehavior of some ethnographic researchers, most social science research is valued for and motivated by its expert engagement with moral questions regarding discrimination, unfairness, exploitation, and so on, at home and abroad: knowledge of and sensitivity to the complexities around the violation of socio-economic, political, and cultural norms and values are carried high in the social science banner. Yet, since the 1990s, social science research projects in the Anglo-American world have increasingly entrusted research ethics to the scrutiny of U-RECs. This ethical delegation gives a mandate to U-RECs, often without suitable expertise, to vet research projects in a bureaucratic and time-consuming manner. It does not just lead to misunderstandings and frustration; it also privileges research as defined by research ethics committees rather than in negotiation with the ethics we encounter "in the field." Although formal research ethics is clearly confusing early career researchers (and others!) about the role of ethics (which?), its forms have come to shape our disciplines. How did we get there? How do we move forward?

In the United States, the "common law," that regulates ethics review is being overhauled. We ask how UK University Research Ethics Committees (U-RECs), following the American model, have been able to shape social-science research without much commotion, and whether it is time for change. Despite the misbehavior of some ethnographic researchers, most social science research is valued for and motivated by its expert engagement with moral questions regarding discrimination, unfairness, exploitation, and so on, at home and abroad: knowledge of and sensitivity to the complexities around the violation of socio-economic, political, and cultural norms and values are carried high in the social science banner. Yet, since the 1990s, social science research projects in the Anglo-American world have increasingly entrusted research ethics to the scrutiny of U-RECs. This ethical delegation gives a mandate to U-RECs, often without suitable expertise, to vet research projects in a bureaucratic and time-consuming manner. It does not just lead to misunderstandings and frustration; it also privileges research as defined by research ethics committees rather than in negotiation with the ethics we encounter "in the field." Although formal research ethics is clearly confusing early career researchers (and others!) about the role of ethics (which?), its forms have come to shape our disciplines. How did we get there? How do we move forward?