Recent gender analyses have been opening new paths for innovation and excellence. They are the basis for the Gendered Innovations project, led by the science historian Londa Schiebinger, in joint collaboration with the European Union. However, this work did not come out of nowhere; it is supported by decades of gender and science studies consisting of different research lines that critically reviewed the history of science and recovered the story of women's contributions to different scientific fields. This paper reviews the origin and genealogy of the project, highlights its positive effects, and highlights examples of its achievements.
First made available online on 26 October 2018 ; Women's studies have come a long way. Precisely twenty years ago, the American historian Gerda Lerner wrote that "the striking fact about the historiography of women is the general neglect of the subject by historians". At that time, women as a subject were not only "hidden from history", but also hidden from the other humanities and social sciences. Scholarship was far from "objective" or "universal". Because it was based on male experience, placing men at the centre and as a measure of a] I things human, it left out half of humankind. In the past two decades, however, the situation has considerably changed. In an enormous (and enormously growing) body of scholarship women have been rendered visible. They have been placed at the centre and what women do, have to do, want to do has been re-evaluated. It has been re-evaluated in view of social, political and cultural change, of an improvement in women's situations and, more generally, in terms of a change towards more freedom and justice. But what was it, more precisely, that has been rendered visible by making women a subject of research? In a first step, it was their subjection, in a second step it was their subjectivity because women are not only victims, but they also actively shape their own lives and society.
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).
This article considers the recurring criticisms of Women's Studies. The desire for the demise of Women's Studies is not new yet recent demands for its end have come from Women's Studies scholars themselves. I review the arguments for and against the termination of the field and, although the arguments against Women's Studies are compelling, I argue for its continuation. This paradoxical conclusion is reached by reconsidering the "for and against" debates through Wendy Brown's use of Jacques Derrida's "spectre" and Walter Benjamin's "angel of history." Thus, despite the seduction of the discourse of conventional argumentation performed through the deconstructive critique of women's studies, the article reposes the question of how to retain Women's Studies – founded on the incoherent category of woman – whilst simultaneously subjecting the field to radical interrogation and re-organization.
Democratization has become an important concept in the last ten years. With the end of the Cold War, the spread of globalization, and the extension of economic regulatory regimes, democratization has come to be seen as important to securing long-term political stability. Much has been written about democratization and gender in works on human rights, citizenship, women's movements and challenges to authoritarian regimes. This book, published in association with the United Nations, builds on this existing body of literature by looking at the relevance of national machineries for the advancement of women. Appropriate mechanisms through which the mainstreaming of gender can take place are considered, and the levels of governance involved - the relationship between gender mainstreaming and state structures, and the effect of this relationship on issues of decentralization, accountability, consultation and participation. It defines what the 'interests of women' are, and how and by what processes these interests are represented to the state policy making structures. Global strategies for the advancement of women, and how far these have penetrated at national level are considered. This is illuminated by a series of case studies - gender equality in Sweden and other Nordic countries, the Ugandan ministry of Gender, Culture and Social services, gender awareness in Central and Eastern Europe, and further examples from South Korea, the Lebanon, Beijing and Australia. This book will be of vital use to students of democratization, gender studies and politics, and is the first full-length appraisal of global strategies and national machineries for the advancement of women.
The Women's Studies Program was an interdisciplinary program enabling the student to select courses dealing directly or indirectly with women, including the development of feminism, women's changing roles in the family, religion, the labor force, and politics. The collection is composed of Women's History Month material, Woman of Distinction Awards Tea material, sponsored programs and material describing the Women's Studies minor.
While breast cancer continues to affect the lives of millions, contemporary writers and artists have responded to the ravages of the disease in creative expression. Mary K. DeShazer's book looks specifically at breast cancer memoirs and photographic narratives, a category she refers to as mammographies, signifying both the imaging technology by which most Western women discover they have this disease and the documentary imperatives that drive their written and visual accounts of it. Mammographies argues that breast cancer narratives of the past ten years differ from their predecessors in their bold address of previously neglected topics such as the link between cancer and environmental carcinogens, the ethics and efficacy of genetic testing and prophylactic mastectomy, and the shifting politics of prosthesis and reconstruction.
Since the time of decolonisation in Fiji, women's organisations have navigated a complex political terrain. While they have stayed true to the aim of advancing
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.
Dangerous Ideas explores sex and love, politics and performance, joy and anguish in a collection of essays focussed on the history and politics of the Women's Liberation Movement and one of its offshoots, Women's Studies, in Australia and around the world. These are serious matters: they are about tectonic changes in people's lives and ideas in the late twentieth century, too little remembered or understood any longer. 'Feminism', this book suggests, 'is always multiple and various, fluid and changing, defying efforts at definition, characterisation, periodisation'. Nevertheless, Dangerous Ideas tackles some hard questions. How did Women's Liberation begin? What held this transformative movement together? Would it bring about the death of the family? Was it reorganising the labour market? Revolutionising human reproduction? How could Women's Studies exist in patriarchal universities? Could feminism change the paradigms governing the world of learning? In the United States? In Russia? In the People's Republic of China? It is great fun, too. This book tells of Hobart's hilarious Feminist Food Guide; of an outburst of creative energies among feminists – women on top, behaving badly; of dreams and desires for an entirely different future. And, always unorthodox: it finds hope and cheer in a history of the tampon.
