Suchergebnisse

One of the essential elements of a rapper's art is "flow": the delivery of text against beat. Hip hop, with its linguistic dominance and street origins, is traditionally male-orientated, with women often depicted in terms of (sexual) subordination. However, when considered through a female gaze, the discourses conjured by "flow" take on different meanings. From the flow of desire to monthly visits from Aunt Flo, "flow" is integral to female sexuality. As a commercial art form in a capitalist society, the flow of capital is another meaning that has been largely overlooked in hip hop studies. In this article we broaden the understanding of "flow" to include that of the libido, menstruation, capital, and social media. We analyse five hip hop songs (with videos) using a methodology that builds on Van Leeuwen's (1999) multimodal analysis of sound, together with a tripartite division of "mode" into cultural practices, semiotic resources, and elements (Maxwell, 2015), underpinned by close readings of the Marxist philosophers Deleuze and Guattari. We show that the dominant flow in hip hop is inevitably that of capital – the Deleuzian great flow – and that even this self-consciously subversive music style is governed by the insatiable drive of the market.

Published version, licenced CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Source at https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0105-9. ; There is an increasing recognition that there is a class of problems that society must solve urgently in the twenty-first century if humanity is to survive into the twentysecond century—the so-called 'Grand Challenges'. Science policymakers have been active in recognising these challenges and the attendant need to develop new multidisciplinary ways of working. But embracing multidisciplinarity is not a straightforward choice for scientists, who individually are strongly steered by norms and values inculcated through their past scientific experiences. In this paper, therefore, we ask whether new funding approaches can contribute to creating new ways of working by scientists towards challenge-driven research, specifically by changing scientists' expectations and beliefs. We address this research question with reference to a single new experimental method, the 'research sandpit', implemented experimentally in a single national science system, Norway. Our data are derived from interviews with scientists involved in the five research projects funded as a result of the first sandpit, called 'Idélab' (idea lab) and held in 2014, and with the Research Council of Norway. We conclude that the sandpit approach appeared to shift research perceptions of individual scientists, particularly around long-term belief structures. This implies that, when well managed, the sandpit model can indeed be useful to generate multidisciplinary research as part of a multifaceted approach to funding scientific research.

Source at http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1415371. ; There has been increasing concern recently in ensuring that public funding for science and innovation creates truly public benefits. This has emerged at a time of an uneasy feeling emerging in society that it is private corporations and patent holders that reap the rewards, particularly in new drugs which may be generally unaffordable despite being 'discovered' by public funding (Gronde et al., 2017). Barry Bozeman's work about public value failure highlights the sense that 'the public voice' has been suppressed in scientific decision-making primarily oriented towards delivering technological advances (Bozeman, 2002). Indeed, contemporary world's complexity makes it hard for researchers working on narrow technologically focused questions can comprehend how their results will be used once their ideas have left the laboratory. This raises the question of whether funding can function as a governance instrument to encourage this wider reflective practice, to ensure that scientists take all reasonable measures to use their privileged positions to benefit society?