Suchergebnisse

The development of territorology requires the overcoming of the dichotomy between determinist and constructivist approaches, in order to advance towards a general science of territory and territorial phenomena. Insights for this task can come from at least four main threads of research: biology, zooethology and human ethology; human ecology, social psychology and interactionism; human, political and legal geography; and philosophy. In light of the insights derived from these traditions, the article aims to conceptualize territorial components, technologies, movements, effects, and their interplay, in order to establish the main lines of inquiry for territorology. A general territorology, it is argued, amounts to a sociology of territorial acts and relations, whose aim is to analyze the expressive and functional components of territories, as fixed through their organizational and technological devices.

Italian political science has grown remarkably in the last two decades both in quantity and quality. Such a growth, however, came much later than in other European countries due to a number of cultural and institutional obstacles. The development of the discipline and the timing of such development are seen as the result of interaction of four broad sets of factors. They are: (1) the effort by scholars in the 1960s to establish political science as a distinct field of study; (2) the social and economic development of Italian society, which called for reform and political modernization; (3) the push from the outside, especially the impact of American political science and behaviouralism; and (4) changes in the Italian university system. The structure and degree of institutionalization of the profession in today's Italy are briefly reviewed in the final section.

"The growth of cities poses ever-increasing challenges for the natural environment on which they impact and depend, not only within their boundaries but also in surrounding peri-urban areas. Landscape ecology -- the study of interactions across space and time between the structure and function of physical, biological and cultural components of landscapes -- has a pivotal role to play in identifying sustainable solutions. This book brings together examples of research at the cutting edge of urban landscape ecology across multiple contexts that investigate the state, maintenance and restoration of healthy and functional natural environments across urban and peri-urban landscapes. An explicit focus is on urban landscapes in contrast to other books which have considered urban ecosystems and ecology without specific focus on spatial connections. It integrates research and perspectives from across academia, public and private practitioners of urban conservation, planning and design. It provides a much needed summary of current thinking on how urban landscapes can provide the foundation of sustained economic growth, prospering communities and personal well-being."--

Decision analysis-a systematic approach to solving complex problems-offers tools and frameworks to support decision making that are increasingly being applied to environmental challenges. Alternatives analysis is a method used in regulation and product design to identify, compare, and evaluate the safety and viability of potential substitutes for hazardous chemicals.Assess whether decision science may assist the alternatives analysis decision maker in comparing alternatives across a range of metrics.A workshop was convened that included representatives from government, academia, business, and civil society and included experts in toxicology, decision science, alternatives assessment, engineering, and law and policy. Participants were divided into two groups and prompted with targeted questions. Throughout the workshop, the groups periodically came together in plenary sessions to reflect on other groups' findings.We conclude the further incorporation of decision science into alternatives analysis would advance the ability of companies and regulators to select alternatives to harmful ingredients, and would also advance the science of decision analysis.We advance four recommendations: (1) engaging the systematic development and evaluation of decision approaches and tools; (2) using case studies to advance the integration of decision analysis into alternatives analysis; (3) supporting transdisciplinary research; and (4) supporting education and outreach efforts.

International audience ; Information science has often been recognized as an interdisciplinary field. The marriage between librarianship/documentation and computer science was a natural development in the United States in the post-War period (Farkas-Conn, 1991; Hahn & Barlow, 2012), while the development of information science in Europe has largely stayed close to the humanities and the social sciences, in particular, in relation to communication and media (Ibekwe-SanJuan, et al., 2010). For many years, the interdisciplinary nature of information science has been applauded; until recently, we are warned that interdisciplinarinity may be harmful to the identity of the field. Buckland (2012) states that the claim of being "interdisciplinary" is to choose a position of weakness because "in times of economic crisis political power tends to reside in well-established disciplines." Cronin (2012) comments that "the field's sense of identity, arguably fragile at the best of times, is likely to be further weakened" for its "epistemic promiscuity." This international panel aims to discuss the theoretical boundaries of information science in relation to disciplinarity and to the identity of information science with a special reference to the premises, promises and implications of diverging historical and contemporary traditions in different European countries and in the US.

International audience ; Information science has often been recognized as an interdisciplinary field. The marriage between librarianship/documentation and computer science was a natural development in the United States in the post-War period (Farkas-Conn, 1991; Hahn & Barlow, 2012), while the development of information science in Europe has largely stayed close to the humanities and the social sciences, in particular, in relation to communication and media (Ibekwe-SanJuan, et al., 2010). For many years, the interdisciplinary nature of information science has been applauded; until recently, we are warned that interdisciplinarinity may be harmful to the identity of the field. Buckland (2012) states that the claim of being "interdisciplinary" is to choose a position of weakness because "in times of economic crisis political power tends to reside in well-established disciplines." Cronin (2012) comments that "the field's sense of identity, arguably fragile at the best of times, is likely to be further weakened" for its "epistemic promiscuity." This international panel aims to discuss the theoretical boundaries of information science in relation to disciplinarity and to the identity of information science with a special reference to the premises, promises and implications of diverging historical and contemporary traditions in different European countries and in the US.

International audience ; Information science has often been recognized as an interdisciplinary field. The marriage between librarianship/documentation and computer science was a natural development in the United States in the post-War period (Farkas-Conn, 1991; Hahn & Barlow, 2012), while the development of information science in Europe has largely stayed close to the humanities and the social sciences, in particular, in relation to communication and media (Ibekwe-SanJuan, et al., 2010). For many years, the interdisciplinary nature of information science has been applauded; until recently, we are warned that interdisciplinarinity may be harmful to the identity of the field. Buckland (2012) states that the claim of being "interdisciplinary" is to choose a position of weakness because "in times of economic crisis political power tends to reside in well-established disciplines." Cronin (2012) comments that "the field's sense of identity, arguably fragile at the best of times, is likely to be further weakened" for its "epistemic promiscuity." This international panel aims to discuss the theoretical boundaries of information science in relation to disciplinarity and to the identity of information science with a special reference to the premises, promises and implications of diverging historical and contemporary traditions in different European countries and in the US.

International audience ; Information science has often been recognized as an interdisciplinary field. The marriage between librarianship/documentation and computer science was a natural development in the United States in the post-War period (Farkas-Conn, 1991; Hahn & Barlow, 2012), while the development of information science in Europe has largely stayed close to the humanities and the social sciences, in particular, in relation to communication and media (Ibekwe-SanJuan, et al., 2010). For many years, the interdisciplinary nature of information science has been applauded; until recently, we are warned that interdisciplinarinity may be harmful to the identity of the field. Buckland (2012) states that the claim of being "interdisciplinary" is to choose a position of weakness because "in times of economic crisis political power tends to reside in well-established disciplines." Cronin (2012) comments that "the field's sense of identity, arguably fragile at the best of times, is likely to be further weakened" for its "epistemic promiscuity." This international panel aims to discuss the theoretical boundaries of information science in relation to disciplinarity and to the identity of information science with a special reference to the premises, promises and implications of diverging historical and contemporary traditions in different European countries and in the US.

From its very beginnings political science has been a complex discipline torn in conflicting directions. Consider Aristotle's Politics, the first book that looks like a contemporary political science monograph. In the book, Aristotle presented two opposing strands of argument that he managed with tolerable success to hold together. On the one hand, Aristotle treated the study of politics as a branch of practical knowledge, its aim being action (praxis), not theory. Political action is always contextual or circumstantial, the action of particular agents faced with a particular set of circumstances. Therefore, the student of politics needs to be concerned above all with learning the art of political judgment, with how to think and deliberate well under specific circumstances. Aristotle wrote the Politics for men situated in popular assemblies, courts of law, and councils of war. He presented politics as inseparable from rhetoric, the art of public persuasion. Aristotle believed that the perspective of the political theorist should not depart too far from that of the citizen or statesman.Yet, at the same time, Aristotle acknowledged that politics is a form of knowledge with its own distinctive subject matter and set of truth claims. Good student of Plato's that he was, Aristotle saw himself as turning the study of politics into a science (episteme) inasmuch as it constituted the search for a comprehensive or general explanation of some particular branch of knowledge.