Suchergebnisse

Each no. also has a distinctive title. ; Vols. 1-33 lack whole numbering but constitute no. 1-88; no. 89-273 called also v. 34-124. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; "Edited by the Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University."

Each no. also has a distinctive title. ; Title varies. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Edited by the Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University.

Vol. 1-33 lack whole numbering but constitute no. 1-88; no. 89-273 also called v. 34-124. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Edited by the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University.

Ilmu sosial mempunyai peranan penting dalam pengembangan kajian pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial (IPS), diantaranya seperti geografi, sejarah, sosiologi, ekonomi, psikologi, antropologi, dan politik. Tujuan penulisan artikel ini untuk mendeskripsikan bagaimana keterkaitan ilmu sosial dalam pengembangan kajian pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial (IPS). Desain penelitian yang digunakan pada penelitian ini berupa studi literatur. Strategi penelusuran data menggunakan berbagai buku, ebook, dan jurnal melalui platform google scholar dengan penelusuran melalui kata kunci terpilih. Hasil penelitian mendeskripsikan bahwa bidang ilmu sosial memiliki keterkaitan dalam kajian pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial (IPS). Materi Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial (IPS) didasarkan atas dukungan konsep dari disiplin ilmu sosial, dalam bentuk tema-tema yang relevan dengan tujuan pembelajaran IPS diantaranya: waktu, keberlanjutan dan perubahan, manusia tempat dan lingkungan, produksi distribusi dan konsumsi, individu masyarakat dan institusi, budaya dan keragaman budaya, kekuasaan kewenangan dan pemerintahan, perkembangan individu dan identitas. Ilmu sosial berkontribusi untuk pengembangan program pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial (IPS).

Der Band präsentiert eine 1931/32 von Charlotte Weisl verfasste jüdische Familiengeschichte, die über sieben Generationen und drei Jahrhunderte bis zum Dreißigjährigen Krieg zurückreicht. Die Wanderschaft böhmischer Juden beginnt in kleinen Landgemeinden und führt über Prag nach Wien, wo der jüdische Emanzipations- und Assimilationsprozess durch die persönliche Begegnung mit dem Zionismus in der Gestalt Theodor Herzls eine neue Wendung nimmt. Der Erste Weltkrieg und der sich bereits bedrohlich abzeichnende Eintritt in das "Zeitalter Hitlers" sind die weiteren einschneidenden politischen Ereignisse. Der Band enthält den kommentierten Text, eine ausführliche monographische Einleitung sowie eine Zeittafel, die einen Überblick über das politische, sozial- und kulturgeschichtliche Umfeld vermittelt.

In the wake of the Nazi regime's policies, European Jewish cultural property was dispersed, dislocated, and destroyed. Books, manuscripts, and artworks were either taken by their fleeing owners and were transferred to different places worldwide, or they fell prey to systematic looting and destruction under German occupation. Until today, a significant amount of items can be found in private and public collections in Germany as well as abroad with an unclear or disputed provenance. Contested Heritage. Jewish Cultural Property after 1945 illuminates the political and cultural implications of Jewish cultural property looted and displaced during the Holocaust. The volume includes seventeen essays, accompanied by newly discovered archival material and illustrations, which address a wide range of topics: from the shifting meaning and character of the objects themselves, the so-called object biographies, their restitution processes after 1945, conflicting ideas about their appropriate location, political interests in their preservation, actors and networks involved in salvage operations, to questions of intellectual and cultural transfer processes revolving around the moving objects and their literary resonances. Thus, it offers a fascinating insight into lesser-known dimensions of the aftermath of the Holocaust and the history of Jews in postwar Europe.

A Brief Genealogy of Jewish Republicanism: Parting Ways with Judith Butler uses the chance synchronicity of the 2013 Israeli parliamentary elections and literary theorist Judith Butler's controversial Brooklyn College address calling for the boycotting of Israeli academic, cultural, and economic institutions as an occasion for examining possible relations between Jewishness and state-centered forms of self-governance. In an extended analysis of Butler's Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism, Tucker shows how the alignment of certain authors' identities and ideas undergirding Butler's analytical framework draws upon a pointedly Christian conception of belief. This Christian conception of belief structures the most familiar understandings of modern secularism, articulated most famously by John Locke in his "Letter Concerning Toleration." Tucker reads Locke's "Letter"' alongside Jewish philosopher/rabbi Moses Mendelssohn's 1783 critique of Locke, Jerusalem: Or On Religious Power and Judaism, and the Jewish tradition of the minyan, making a case for the existence of an alternative history of publicness borrowing from Jewish conceptions of communal life and the proper relations of actions and ideas. In throwing light on a genealogy of Jewish practices aimed at the deliberate creation of collectives constituted by their grappling with contingent, historical time, Tucker argues for the existence of a Jewish tradition of republicanism, of democracy. Within such a context, the Jewishness of Israel can be seen to lie first and foremost in its methods of generating a civil collective out of a diverse citizenry rather than in the identities of its individual citizens. The tradition Tucker has in mind explicitly uses an idea of ritual or "ceremonial law" to sustain within itself a tension between a heterogeneity of perspectives and interests constitutive of democratic process and the forms of unity and agreement often understood to be the desired outcome of that process. By setting forth a framework in which heterogeneity and agreement are conceived as coincident modes of political being rather than steps in a linear process, this "Jewish republicanism" frames law-making, implementation and following as forms of a single structure of ritual practice. Such a framework might provide the inspiration and authority for reconceiving some of the fundamental relations of the Zionist project

Doctoral dissertation / Open Access ; The shortage of qualified teachers has long been recognized as a significant concern faced by public and private schools in the United States and the rate at which early-career teachers leave the profession has materially exacerbated the problem. Numerous government and privately sponsored programs and initiatives have taken aim at ameliorating the elevated attrition rates of novice teachers however little, if any, progress has been made and current studies indicate that the exit frequency of new teachers leaving the profession in addition to the overall dearth of educators, will continue (García & Weiss, 2019). Within the private school sector, which includes parochial educational institutions, the retention challenge is at least as troubling, and Jewish day schools are no exception (Ben-Avie & Kress, 2008; Menachem, 2017). Various studies have examined what motivates novice public and private school teachers to depart the profession though very little attention, if any, has ever been focused on why novice Jewish studies teachers in Modern Orthodox Jewish day schools leave. The goal of this study, which employed a qualitative, phenomenological approach, was to shed light on the reasons why novice Jewish studies teachers leave the profession and to determine whether compensation and/or life cycle events were major influencers in the former teachers' decision making. Thirteen novice Jewish studies teachers who recently left the teaching profession after having taught in New York metropolitan area Modern Orthodox day schools were interviewed extensively about their backgrounds and reasons for their departures. The three factors suggested most often by the interviewees for their leaving, in descending order of priority, were the paucity of senior administration support and feedback, followed by the excess stress and workloads they faced and finally, inadequate compensation. The hope is that the fresh insights provided will encourage Modern Orthodox day school ...

For five decades Golda Meir was at the center of the political arena in Israel and left her mark on the development of the Yishuv and the state. She was a unique woman, great leader, with a magnetic personality, a highly complex individual. She held some of the most important positions that her party and the State could bestow. She fulfilled most of them with talent and dignity. She failed in the top job – that of Prime Minister. This biography traces her origins, her American roots, her immediate family, her failed marriage, her rise in the party, the trade union movement, her massive and enduring achievements as Secretary of Labor and Housing, her ten year stint as foreign minister and finally the reasons that led to her failure as prime minister. She was a very good tactician, far less a strategist. She was a major builder of modern Israel whose influence on that country, on Israel-American relations and on Jewish history was evident primarily from 1969 to 1974.

This quantitative study was conducted to identify the misconception between social studies and social sciences among pre-service elementary teachers. Data were collected from the subjects (n=122) drawn by cluster sampling in Yogyakarta. Aiken's validity and Cronbach Alpha were then employed to examine the instrument's quality. Collected data were analyzed using descriptive techniques to examine the level of misconception. The popular misconceptions between social studies and social sciences were identified by the criteria developed by Abraham, Grzybowski, Renner, Marek (1992). The results of the study show that there was a greater understanding of social studies and social sciences for the specific fields of geography, anthropology, and politics. Therefore, the main emphasis should be placed on these fields. The fields that were misconceived included economics, geography, and history. The implications of this research will eventually become the basis and guideline for social studies lecturers to give emphases on the fields of study belonging to social studies, distinguishing them from those of social sciences. In addition, each social science discipline adopted into social studies must receive special attention, given the greater level of misconception among the pre-service teachers in these fields.

Theoretical frameworks associated with science and technology studies (STS) are becoming increasingly prominent in social science energy research, but what do they offer? This review provides a brief history of relevant STS concepts and frameworks and a structured analysis of how STS perspectives are appearing in energy social science research and how energy-related research is appearing in social science STS. Drawing from an initial body of 262 journal articles and books with a stratified sample of 68 published from 2009 to mid-2019, the review identifies four major groups of perspectives: (1) STS-related cultural analysis, especially the study of sociotechnical imaginaries; (2) STS-related policy analysis, such as research on the social construction of risks and standards and on the performativity of economic models; (3) STS perspectives on public participation processes, expert-public relations, and mobilized publics; and (4) the study of sociotechnical systems, including large technological systems, the politics of design, and users and actor-networks. Connections among the perspectives and the value for energy social science research are also critically discussed.

The relevance of sociological theory for explaining the recent dramatic changes in Eastern Europe is at hand. The impact of the downfall of communism has been compared with those Great Transformations along which sociology evolved as a science of crisis par excellence (Habermas). The actual elaboration of a sociological theory of post-communist transformation and its relation to East European studies is, nevertheless, anything but clear. The unexpected collapse of socialism was perceived as a failure of prognosis and led to self-critical debates in all social science disciplines. In this rethinking its basic concepts, sociology is exposed to pressure from different sides - above all from the polemic launched with the surprising revival of the theory of totalitarianism against the ,,liberalist social sciences across the board. Influential historians like Robert Pipes, Martin Malia, Robert Conquest, and Francois Furet followed by sociologists from Robert Nisbet to Seymour Lipset hold the fatal influence exerted by social science concepts on Eastern European and Soviet Studies during the last decades responsible for the whole intellectual disaster in Western Academe which became apparent after 1989. These approaches, as the neo-totalitarian accusation runs, elevated Soviet socialism to a modernization strategy and conceded a reform capacity which, in fact, was not available. Target of this critique are all attempts of a social history from below, sociological theories of action and especially the positivist illusion of modernization theory. Blinded by political motives, it is said, the insights of (neo-)totalitarianism theory into the inevitable collapse of communism were dismissed. In order to correctly draw the lines in the controversies between neototalitarianism theory and the social science approach, it is helpful to follow them along the changing career of the concept of totalitarianism thereby reconstructing the sociological arguments involved in the current discussion on the disintegration of socialist societies. On this line it will be argued (section 2), that the crisis of the classic theory of totalitarianism and the social science approach in Soviet studies did not follow from a politically motivated revisionism since the 1960s and 1970s. Analysing the socialist societies after 1945 was shaped from the very beginning by sociological, political science and economic models, which contrasted with fundamental assumptions of the classic concept of totalitarianism (section 3). The findings generated by this type of research as well as its limits are revealed when it comes to explaining the disintegration of Soviet socialism. The neo-totalitarianist's objection is correct that ranging socialism in an evolutionary scheme of ascending forms of society was problematic. This construction seems highly inadequate in view of the postcommunist crises and regressions (section 4). On the other hand, a coherent and self-reliant neo-totalitarianism theory is not visible (section 5). Instead the research on Eastern Europe after 1989 has seen an explosive growth of the social science approach in the course of which many revisionist theorems have been refuted, modified or confirmed. Nevertheless, the wave of social science theories entering the post-communist studies does not imply a way back to the golden age of classic modernization theory. The lesson to be learned from (neo-)totalitarianism theory concerns the stress it lays on domination and its specific irrationalities, variables which were indeed neglected by mainstream sociology and, after the Soviet breakdown, are ignored by the liberalist optimism of neoclassic reform programmes. The drama of the post-communist crises reminds us that there are no hidden hands and no evolutionary universals which would lead, quasi automatically, to modernity. On the other hand, the lesson to be learned from the social science approach is that even the most total totalitarianism did not result from a logic of history, but from certain constellations of interests, reciprocities between rulers and ruled, institutions of administration and value commitments, etc. which are quite accessible to a reconstruction in sociological terms.

This book consists of a range of essays covering the complex crises, tensions and dilemmas but also the positive potential in the meeting of Jews with Western culture. In numerous contexts and through the work of fascinating individuals and thinkers, the work examines some of the consequences of political, cultural and personal rupture, as well as the manifold ways in which various Jewish intellectuals, politicians (and occasionally spies!) sought to respond to these ruptures and carve out new, sometimes profound, sometimes fanciful, options of thought and action. It also delves critically into the attacks on liberal and Enlightenment humanism. In almost all the essays the fragility of things is palpably present and the book touches on some of the ironies, problematics and functions of responses to that condition. The work mirrors the author's ongoing fascination with the always fraught, fragile and creatively fecund confrontation of Jews (and others) with European modernity, its history, politics, culture and self-definition. In a time of increasing anxiety and feelings of fragility, this work may be helpful in understanding how people at an earlier (and sometimes contemporary) period sought to come to terms with a similar predicament.

What are the virtues of institutions we take for granted-universities, the study of the social sciences and humanities, and scholarship on professions such as law? What are the vices of the disciplinary structure of the social sciences, even in the law and society movement and criminology that started as interdisciplinary projects? Research on regulation within an interdisciplinary structure, the Regulatory Institutions Network, is used to illustrate the difficulties of attempts to change direction in the social sciences. The article advocates the creative destruction of disciplinary structures by organizing in tents that study institutionalization (rather than buildings that study categories of institutions). To keep pace with social change, pulling tents down and endlessly pegging out new ones is a path forward. A politics of defending universities and opposing the disciplines that have captured them does not mean advocacy of restructuring. If more interesting work issues from poorly funded tents than from disciplinary edifices, reformers can advance creative destruction.

What are the virtues of institutions we take for granted-universities, the study of the social sciences and humanities, and scholarship on professions such as law? What are the vices of the disciplinary structure of the social sciences, even in the law and society movement and criminology that started as interdisciplinary projects? Research on regulation within an interdisciplinary structure, the Regulatory Institutions Network, is used to illustrate the difficulties of attempts to change direction in the social sciences. The article advocates the creative destruction of disciplinary structures by organizing in tents that study institutionalization (rather than buildings that study categories of institutions). To keep pace with social change, pulling tents down and endlessly pegging out new ones is a path forward. A politics of defending universities and opposing the disciplines that have captured them does not mean advocacy of restructuring. If more interesting work issues from poorly funded tents than from disciplinary edifices, reformers can advance creative destruction.