Suchergebnisse

The following article is a product of a research that had as target to know the influence of the general environment on the productive development of Venezuelan companies. In that way, it was framed under references of Chiavenato and Sapiro (2011), Dess, Lumpkin and Eisner (2011), Manes (2019), Robledo (2017), among others. In the same way, starting from quantitative paradigm, using descriptive-documentary research, the data was gathered using secondary sources to develop the theoretical argumentation over the Venezuelan general environment, offering an image of the moment with its implications on the productive sectors. As a result, exodus, together with serious fiscal imbalances added to a decline of national production and lack of government incentives on technological development has affected agriculture sectors of national manufacturing. ; El presente artículo tuvo como objetivo conocer la influencia del entorno general en el desarrollo productivo de la empresa venezolana. En este sentido, se enmarcó este producto bajo las referencias bibliográficas de Chiavenato y Sapiro (2011), Dess, Lumpkin y Eisner (2011), Manes (2019), Robledo (2017), entre otros. Del mismo modo, partiendo del paradigma cuantitativo, usando un tipo de investigación descriptivo-documental, se recurrió a la recolección de datos de fuentes secundarias para desarrollar la argumentación teórica sobre entorno general venezolano ofreciendo una imagen del momento coyuntural con sus implicaciones sobre los sectores productivos, obteniendo como resultado que la migración, en conjunto con serios desequilibrios fiscales, sumado al descenso de la producción nacional y la falta de incentivos gubernamentales en el desarrollo tecnológico han afectado todos los sectores medulares de la manufactura nacional.

Drawing on the empirical findings generated by researchers in science studies, and adopting Kropotkin's concept of anarchism as one of the social sciences, Red, Black, and Objective expounds and develops an anarchist account of science as a social construction and social institution. Restivo's account is at once normative, analytical, organizational, and policy oriented, in particular with respect to education.

Open science is not a particularly novel idea: disclosing science to expose it to a public scrutiny is among the deeds of the modern science revolution. Neither is new the unbalance between science - the living craftsmanship of a knowledge community - and its alleged embodiment in textual objects: the scope of written papers is so wide in space and time that they can be adopted as knowledge proxies. Such a question, in fact, is as ancient as Plato's critique of writing in Phaedrus. Accordingly, open science can be understood in two different - and not necessarily congruent - meanings: (1) as a philosophical ideal of human emancipation through the opening of scholarly conversation among people; (2) as a management model that might also be aimed to the exploitation of open research texts and data for the sake of the market. Since the Italian research evaluation system is based on an administrative agency that is in control of all the facets of academic life, it would not be - administratively - difficult to add an open science mandate to the researchers' burden of duties. Philosophically, however, we have to ask not only why open science, today, needs to be mandated, but, above all, whether (open) science can be mandated. The application of a Kantian thought experiment to a vindication of the Italian State assessment of research attempted by one of its former functionaries helps us to show that: open science needs to be mandated because it is not open any longer; the very submission of research to blueprints dictated by an administrative authority reduces it to a bureaucratic, commodified enterprise whose horizon is not the advancement of learning - or discoveries and revolutions yet to do - but the production of information and data whose goal is not determined by the will to knowledge any longer, but by economic and political powers.

Open science is not a particularly novel idea: disclosing science to expose it to a public scrutiny is among the deeds of the modern science revolution. Neither is new the unbalance between science - the living craftsmanship of a knowledge community - and its alleged embodiment in textual objects: the scope of written papers is so wide in space and time that they can be adopted as knowledge proxies. Such a question, in fact, is as ancient as Plato's critique of writing in Phaedrus. Accordingly, open science can be understood in two different - and not necessarily congruent - meanings: (1) as a philosophical ideal of human emancipation through the opening of scholarly conversation among people; (2) as a management model that might also be aimed to the exploitation of open research texts and data for the sake of the market. Since the Italian research evaluation system is based on an administrative agency that is in control of all the facets of academic life, it would not be - administratively - difficult to add an open science mandate to the researchers' burden of duties. Philosophically, however, we have to ask not only why open science, today, needs to be mandated, but, above all, whether (open) science can be mandated. The application of a Kantian thought experiment to a vindication of the Italian State assessment of research attempted by one of its former functionaries helps us to show that: open science needs to be mandated because it is not open any longer; the very submission of research to blueprints dictated by an administrative authority reduces it to a bureaucratic, commodified enterprise whose horizon is not the advancement of learning - or discoveries and revolutions yet to do - but the production of information and data whose goal is not determined by the will to knowledge any longer, but by economic and political powers.

Open science is not a particularly novel idea: disclosing science to expose it to a public scrutiny is among the deeds of the modern science revolution. Neither is new the unbalance between science - the living craftsmanship of a knowledge community - and its alleged embodiment in textual objects: the scope of written papers is so wide in space and time that they can be adopted as knowledge proxies. Such a question, in fact, is as ancient as Plato's critique of writing in Phaedrus. Accordingly, open science can be understood in two different - and not necessarily congruent - meanings: (1) as a philosophical ideal of human emancipation through the opening of scholarly conversation among people; (2) as a management model that might also be aimed to the exploitation of open research texts and data for the sake of the market. Since the Italian research evaluation system is based on an administrative agency that is in control of all the facets of academic life, it would not be - administratively - difficult to add an open science mandate to the researchers' burden of duties. Philosophically, however, we have to ask not only why open science, today, needs to be mandated, but, above all, whether (open) science can be mandated. The application of a Kantian thought experiment to a vindication of the Italian State assessment of research attempted by one of its former functionaries helps us to show that: open science needs to be mandated because it is not open any longer; the very submission of research to blueprints dictated by an administrative authority reduces it to a bureaucratic, commodified enterprise whose horizon is not the advancement of learning - or discoveries and revolutions yet to do - but the production of information and data whose goal is not determined by the will to knowledge any longer, but by economic and political powers.

Rather than focus on effects, the isolatable and measureable outcomes of events and interventions, the papers assembled here offer different perspectives on the affective dimension of the meaning and politics of human/non-human relations. The authors begin by drawing attention to the constructed discontinuity between humans and non-humans, and to the kinds of knowledge and socialities that this discontinuity sustains, including those underpinned by nature-culture, subject-object, body-mind, individual-society polarities. The articles presented track human/non-human relations through different domains, including: humans/non-humans in history and animal welfare science (Fudge and Buller); the relationship between the way we live, the effects on our natural environment and contested knowledges about 'nature' (Whatmore); choreographies of everyday life and everyday science practices with non-human animals such as horses, meerkats, mice, and wolves (Latimer, Candea, Davies, Despret). Each paper also goes on to offer different perspectives on the human/non-human not just as division, or even as an asymmetrical relation, but as relations that are mutually affective, however invisible and inexpressible in the domain of science. Thus the collection contributes to new epistemologies/ontologies that undercut the usual ordering of relations and their dichotomies, particularly in that dominant domain of contemporary culture that we call science. Indeed, in their impetus to capture 'affect', the collection goes beyond the usual turn towards a more inclusive ontology, and contributes to the radical shift in the epistemology and philosophy of science's terms of engagement.

Testimony issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the Social Security Administration's (SSA) progress in implementing key information technology initiatives critical to its ability to effectively serve the public, focusing on SSA's efforts to: (1) achieve year 2000 readiness; (2) implement the Intelligent Workstation/Local Area Network (IWS/LAN); and (3) develop its Reengineered Disability System (RDS)."

Case studies on local governance practices in eight states of India

Introduction -- Challenges of the 21st century -- Using emerging science and technologies to address persistent and future environmental challenges -- Building science for environmental protection in the 21st century -- Enhanced scientific leadership and capacity in the US Environmental Protection Agency -- Findings and recommendations