Search results

In this paper, we analyze two global projects, twenty-five years apart—the report of the Gulbenkian Commission, published for the first time in Spanish in 1996, and the open science project, known more widely since the approval of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science of 2021—from the perspective of Latin America. In the first section, we revisit the program proposed by Immanuel Wallerstein in the Gulbenkian Report to "open the social sciences" and its main pillars. We then relate this project to the idea of citizen science, the FAIR and CARE principles, and the need to advance participatory science practices with informational justice. Afterwards, we analyze the Latin American path for open science and collaborative infrastructure that has been developing since the 1950s. We analyze the intellectual, institutional, and political conditions that allow our region to carve its own path for open science—and the extent to which the social sciences participate in that process and are affected or promoted by it. Finally, we discuss the critical role of the region's evaluation systems in producing a transformation that reaches the magnitude of open science, without subalternizing the communities that participate in the co-production of open knowledges.

"The most systematic and comprehensive effort yet made to assess the role played by Darwinian ideas in the writings of English-speaking social theorists of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries."â€"Isis"In seeking to set the record straight, Bannister cuts through the amalgam with an intellectual shredder, exposing the illogic and incompatibility involved in fusing Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species with Herbert Spencer's Social Statics.... Bannister's familiarity with relevant texts and their reception by contemporary social theorists, scholars, and critics on both si

Argues that the sociology of law should continue its long-standing focus on law & governmentality, but also should expand its analysis to an examination of the interaction of legal & nonlegal forms of governance. The beginning of such an enterprise is provided by the work of Michel Foucault (1977), raising the question of law's role in modern forms of governmental rationality. It is suggested that Foucault's analysis ought to be revised to attend to the plurality of forms of law & governance, & to focus more explicitly on forms of state power. Using this conception, it is contended that the key link between law & modern power is that law plays the organizational & ideological role of providing temporary moments of unification within dispersed fields of social power. This approach to law & governance is favored over others because it facilitates an account that remains sensitive to variations in modes of governance & local power while remaining attentive to the role of the state in the condensation of power relations. 69 References. D. M. Smith

Les auteurs analysent les comptes rendus des publications et des citations des Chaires de recherche du Canada en sociologie, en science politique et en économie au cours des cinq années pendant lesquelles le programme s'est poursuivi. Ils les comparent à des échantillons aléatoires de comptes rendus de publications et de citations qui ne sont pas le fruit des Chaires de recherche du Canada dans leur discipline respective pour tester leur qualité professionnelle. Les données et les analyses démontrent que les membres de ces Chaires de recherche constituent une population hétérogène ayant peu de «vedettes» authentiques et dont plusieurs personnes présentent des comptes rendus de publications et de citations semblables ou inférieurs à ceux de leurs collègues qui ne sont pas membres des Chaires de recherche du Canada. Les auteurs explorent la monotonie institutionnelle, l'appropriation institutionnelle ainsi que la périphéricité et l'organisation disciplinaire canadiennes en tant qu'explications possibles de ces résultats.This article analyzes the publishing and citation records of Canada Research Chairs (CRCs) in sociology, political science, and economics over the first 5 years of the program. Publication and citation records of CRCs are compared with random samples of non‐CRCs in their respective disciplines as empirical tests of professional strength. The data and analyses suggest that CRCs are a heterogeneous population with a few obvious "stars" and many with publishing and citation records similar or inferior to their non‐CRC peers. Institutional flatness, institutional appropriation, and Canadian peripherality and disciplinary organization are explored as possible explanations for these results.