Search results

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evolution in terms of shares of scholarly book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in five European countries, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. In addition to aggregate results for the whole of the social sciences and the humanities, the authors focus on two well-established fields, namely, economics & business and history. Design/methodology/approach – Comprehensive coverage databases of SSH scholarly output have been set up in Flanders (VABB-SHW), Finland (VIRTA), Norway (NSI), Poland (PBN) and Slovenia (COBISS). These systems allow to trace the shares of monographs and book chapters among the total volume of scholarly publications in each of these countries. Findings – As expected, the shares of scholarly monographs and book chapters in the humanities and in the social sciences differ considerably between fields of science and between the five countries studied. In economics & business and in history, the results show similar field-based variations as well as country variations. Most year-to-year and overall variation is rather limited. The data presented illustrate that book publishing is not disappearing from an SSH. Research limitations/implications – The results presented in this paper illustrate that the polish scholarly evaluation system has influenced scholarly publication patterns considerably, while in the other countries the variations are manifested only slightly. The authors conclude that generalizations like "performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) are bad for book publishing" are flawed. Research evaluation systems need to take book publishing fully into account because of the crucial epistemic and social roles it serves in an SSH.Originality/value – The authors present data on monographs and book chapters from five comprehensive coverage databases in Europe and analyze the data in view of the debates regarding the perceived detrimental effects of research evaluation systems on scholarly book publishing. The authors show that there is little reason to suspect a dramatic decline of scholarly book publishing in an SSH. ; This work is conducted within the framework of the COST action "European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and Humanities" (ENRESSH, CA15137, enressh.eu). Tim Engels thanks the Flemish Government for its financial support to the Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM).

What is terrorism? Can anyone be radicalized? How can we respond to terrorist acts? The Psychology of Terrorism seeks to explain why some acts of violence are considered terrorism and others are not, and why some individuals may be more susceptible to engaging in radical terrorist behavior. Debunking myths and lazy stereotypes, the book delves into some of the most shocking atrocities of our times to discuss the complex and varied psychological characteristics of individual terrorists, organized groups, and their acts. Whilw there is no simple solution, The Psychology of Terrorism shows us that a growing reverse radicalization movement and modern interventionist techniques can give us hope for the future.

In the early twentieth century, the University of California—Berkeley opened its doors to police professionals for instruction in "police science." This program ultimately developed into the full‐fledged School of Criminology, whose graduates helped shape American criminology and criminal justice until well into the 1970s. Scholarship at the School of Criminology eventually fractured into three distinct traditions: "Administrative criminology" applied scientific methods in pursuit of refining law enforcement practices, "law and society" coupled legal scholarship with social scientific methods, and "radical criminology" combined Marxist critiques of the state with community activism. Those scientific traditions relied on competing epistemic premises and normative aspirations, and they drew legitimacy from different sources. Drawing on oral histories and archival data permits a neo‐institutional analysis of how each of these criminological traditions emerged, acquired stability, and subsided. The Berkeley School of Criminology provides fertile ground to examine trends in the development of criminal justice as a profession, criminology as a discipline and its place in elite universities, the uncoupling of criminology from law and society scholarship, and criminal justice policy's disenchantment with the academy. These legacies highlight how the development of modern criminology and the professionalization of American law enforcement find precedent in events that originate at Berkeley.

<p dir="ltr"><span>Entre los grandes debates teóricos que se plantean hoy en el campo de las didácticas, nos seducen particularmente aquellos que se refieren a la relación entre la didáctica y el currículo, con especial referencia a la didáctica de las ciencias sociales. En tal sentido, este artículo intenta trabajar algunas posturas sobre estas conexiones: en primer lugar, se presentan las concepciones existentes hoy sobre cómo lo curricular y lo didáctico se interpelan; se ahonda en el estado de la conceptualización de cada una de estas categorías con el propósito de mirar su punto de intersección, y finalmente se llega a un acercamiento frente a lo que en la didáctica de las ciencias sociales podría estar haciéndose al respecto. En general, este escrito permite otras miradas necesarias para quienes construyen los currículos de las ciencias sociales y para quienes se preguntan por el día a día de su enseñanza.</span></p><div><span><br /></span></div>