Search results

W roku 2011, na mocy decyzji administracyjnej, dokonano korekty podziału polskiej nauki na dziedziny i dyscypliny naukowe. W rezultacie takiego procesu zmieniła się przynależność dziedzinowa m.in. nauk o polityce. Do 30 września 2011 r. dyscyplina ta zaliczana była do dziedziny nauk humanistycznych, a po tej dacie włączono ją do nowej dziedziny nauk społecznych, która została wyodrębniona w wyniku podziału tej pierwszej. Ponieważ zmiana ta wywołała trwającą do dziś dyskusję na temat celowości dokonanej reformy także wśród politologów, ważnym zadaniem podjętych badań była próba potwierdzenia tezy, wg której decyzja taka była uzasadniona merytorycznie. Założono bowiem, że dyscyplina nauki o polityce, w porównaniu z dyscyplinami nauk humanistycznych, ma więcej cech wspólnych z innymi dyscyplinami zaliczonymi do dziedziny nauk społecznych. Ponadto, poprzez ustalenie nowego wykazu dziedzin i dyscyplin naukowych, administracyjne podziały w polskiej nauce zostały w znacznym stopniu dostosowane do klasyfikacji dziedzin i dyscyplin wypracowanych na forum OECD, UNESCO i EUROSTAT, co ułatwi internacjonalizację współpracy naukowej. Na forach tych organizacji i instytucji, a co za tym idzie także w wielu ich państwach członkowskich, już wcześniej podzielono nauki humanistyczne – kiedyś zamiennie nazywane naukami społecznymi – na dwie dziedziny: nauk społecznych i nauk humanistycznych. W celu potwierdzenia słuszności ww. tezy w toku rozważań konieczne było: ustalenie współczesnego pojmowania istoty specjalności naukowej, dyscypliny naukowej i dziedziny nauki; wskazanie najważniejszych podziałów w nauce; podjęcie próby określenia specyfiki dziedziny nauk humanistycznych oraz dziedziny nauk społecznych, a także ukazanie relacji nauk o polityce z tymi dziedzinami nauk. Ocena intensywności takich relacji umożliwiła potwierdzenie słuszności przyjętej tezy. ; By virtue of an administrative decision, the division of Polish academia into fields and disciplines was verified in 2011. It is owing to this process that political science, among others, was reassigned in Poland. Before September 30, 2011, political science was classified as one of the humanities, but later on it was included in the new field of the social sciences, created as a result of the division of the humanities. This decision started an ongoing discussion, also in the circles of political scientists, on the issue of how advisable this change is, and it has become an important task to confirm the thesis that this decision was substantially justified. It is assumed that political science as a discipline has more in common with other disciplines assigned to the social sciences than the humanities. Additionally, by way of developing a new register of academic fields and disciplines, the administrative divisions in Polish academia were to a large extent aligned with the classification of fields and disciplines adopted by the OECD, UNESCO and EUROSTAT, which will facilitate the internationalization of academic collaboration. The above organizations and institutions, and – consequently – some of their member states, have already divided the humanities, which used to be alternatively named social sciences, into two separate fields: the social sciences and the humanities. In order to justify the above-mentioned thesis it was necessary to determine how academic specialization, discipline and field of science are perceived today; to indicate the essential divisions in academia; to attempt to define the specific nature of the humanities versus social sciences; and to present the relations of political science to the latter category. The assessment of how intensive these relations are, made it possible to confirm that the above-mentioned thesis is justified.

International audience ; Mauna Kea, the tallest volcano on Hawai'i Island, has become a mountain familiar to many in the Pacific and around the world, as a result of the massive mobilizations in which those who identified as kia'i (protectors) of the mountain opposed the construction of a giant Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) at the summit. This article retraces the history of the Mauna Kea access road, based on a study of the English-language newspaper recordas well as ethnographic and archival material. From the road's inception in the 1930s onward, economic interests, political conflicts, and relations of domination appear intertwined with the very materiality of the road: its route, surface, safety, maintenance, as well as features such as cattle grids, crosswalks, and guardrails. Three political strategies centrally involved the notion of a Mauna Kea access road. Starting in the 1930s, businessmen and government officials pushed for a road, and later for its improvement, in order to make the mountain more accessible, in particular for skiing. As of the 1960s, this push was paralleled and contradicted by another strategy which consisted in keeping the mountain not too accessible, in part because ofwhat some perceived as a competition between recreational and scientific uses – skiing vs. science. A third political strategy involved the road as a site from which to question the notion of public ownership and to affirm sovereignty. The history of the Mauna Kea access road appears as a synecdoche of the political conflict over land and sovereignty that defines Hawaiian history since the nineteenth century.

International audience ; Mauna Kea, the tallest volcano on Hawai'i Island, has become a mountain familiar to many in the Pacific and around the world, as a result of the massive mobilizations in which those who identified as kia'i (protectors) of the mountain opposed the construction of a giant Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) at the summit. This article retraces the history of the Mauna Kea access road, based on a study of the English-language newspaper recordas well as ethnographic and archival material. From the road's inception in the 1930s onward, economic interests, political conflicts, and relations of domination appear intertwined with the very materiality of the road: its route, surface, safety, maintenance, as well as features such as cattle grids, crosswalks, and guardrails. Three political strategies centrally involved the notion of a Mauna Kea access road. Starting in the 1930s, businessmen and government officials pushed for a road, and later for its improvement, in order to make the mountain more accessible, in particular for skiing. As of the 1960s, this push was paralleled and contradicted by another strategy which consisted in keeping the mountain not too accessible, in part because ofwhat some perceived as a competition between recreational and scientific uses – skiing vs. science. A third political strategy involved the road as a site from which to question the notion of public ownership and to affirm sovereignty. The history of the Mauna Kea access road appears as a synecdoche of the political conflict over land and sovereignty that defines Hawaiian history since the nineteenth century.

International audience ; Mauna Kea, the tallest volcano on Hawai'i Island, has become a mountain familiar to many in the Pacific and around the world, as a result of the massive mobilizations in which those who identified as kia'i (protectors) of the mountain opposed the construction of a giant Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) at the summit. This article retraces the history of the Mauna Kea access road, based on a study of the English-language newspaper recordas well as ethnographic and archival material. From the road's inception in the 1930s onward, economic interests, political conflicts, and relations of domination appear intertwined with the very materiality of the road: its route, surface, safety, maintenance, as well as features such as cattle grids, crosswalks, and guardrails. Three political strategies centrally involved the notion of a Mauna Kea access road. Starting in the 1930s, businessmen and government officials pushed for a road, and later for its improvement, in order to make the mountain more accessible, in particular for skiing. As of the 1960s, this push was paralleled and contradicted by another strategy which consisted in keeping the mountain not too accessible, in part because ofwhat some perceived as a competition between recreational and scientific uses – skiing vs. science. A third political strategy involved the road as a site from which to question the notion of public ownership and to affirm sovereignty. The history of the Mauna Kea access road appears as a synecdoche of the political conflict over land and sovereignty that defines Hawaiian history since the nineteenth century.