Suchergebnisse

The professionalization of science during the latter 19th and early 20th centuries had a profound effect upon the place of women within the science discipline. Women were refused access to higher education and its translation into employment, especially in higher status positions such as professorship.1 As authors Henry Etzkowitz and Carol Kemelgor explained, "The traditional family environment freed up men to pursue research, while also giving them time to engage in the 'laboratory politics' that leads to managerial positions."2 Women remained bound to and defined by their gendered domestic roles as wife and mother, which strained their pursuit of research and their activity within science culture politics.3 Women scientists were therefore relegated to lower status positions, commonly those of periphery science. Periphery science has historically been less favored and less publicly acknowledged or honored compared with the work of "professional" male scientists.4 But gender historians should discuss both the obstacles women scientists faced as well as the ways in which women did participate in science. This work is an investigation into the subculture and community of scientific collecting through the analysis of 1920s and 1930s entomological collecting trip field notes by the Beamer family from University of Kansas. A subculture can be defined as "an ethnic, regional, economic, or social group exhibiting characteristic patterns of behavior sufficient to distinguish it from others within an embracing culture or society."5 Collecting was a subculture of both professional science culture and mainstream American society. It was marked by its regional location in the American West and did exhibit patterns of behavior that distinguished it from professional science culture and society. This scientific subculture both accepted and promoted women involvement in collecting, and science in general. Collecting was a vein of science open to all participants, regardless of expertise, experience, education, age, or sex. Within this collecting subculture, members developed strategies for the existence of their culture and also felt a level of acceptance and camaraderie within their community.

Nature can be collected in many forms and shapes: live animals have been locked up in cages, displayed in zoos and menageries and their hides and dried body parts have been used as part of installations in galleries and studies. Plants from far-away countries have been cultivated in botanical gardens and in hothouses. Furthermore, the depiction of medicinal plants and of prized animals was regarded as an important part of the decorative schemes, in an attempt to bring nature indoors. Recent

Collecting Photography (by Artem Loginov) makes differentiation of key concepts and rules of the art-market of photography. The article's aim is to show several limitations which form specific features of relations between authors and buyers of photographic art pieces. The article analyzes in brief some criteria which have an influence on price formation in the art-market of photography.

Digital humanities has become an influent ial and widely adopted term only in the past decade. Beyond the rapid multiplication of associations, centres, conferences, journals , projects, biogs, and tweets frequently used to signal this emergence, if anything characterizes the field during this time it is a concern with definition. This focus is acknowledged and reflected, for instance, in Matthew Gold's 2012 edited collection, Debates in Digital H11manlties. The debates surveyed are overwhelmlngly definitional: 'As digital humanities has received increasing attention and newfound cachet, its discourse has grown introspective and self-reflexive' (x). Questions that Gold identifies as central to and expressive of the emerging field include: Does one need to build or make things to be part of the digital humanities? 'Does DH need theory? Does lt have a politics? Is it accessible to all members of the profession', or only those working at elite, well-funded Institutions? 'Can it save the humanities? The university?'

At least twenty cultural institutions located in Canberra accept archives into their collections. "Collecting Canberra" involves a complex web of legislative responsibilities and institutional collecting policies which overlap and evolve. Where the archives of particular Canberra people or organisations might be found depends on when those archives became available for collection, the prevailing policies at the time, and the judgement, if not the whim, of individuals. It is not uncommon for Canberra people with "many hats" to be represented in a number of archives as a result of their multi-faceted roles and the overlapping collecting policies of institutions, but of more concern are the gaps between those collecting policies. ; At least twenty cultural institutions located in Canberra accept archives into their collections. 'Collecting Canberra' involves a complex web of legislative responsibilities and institutional collecting policies which overlap and evolve. Where the archives of particular Canberra people or organisations might be found depends on when those archives became available for collection, the prevailing policies at the time, and the judgement, if not the whim, of individuals. It is not uncommon for Canberra people with 'many hats' to be represented in a number of archives as a result of their multi-faceted roles and the overlapping collecting policies of institutions, but of more concern are the gaps between those collecting policies.

At least twenty cultural institutions located in Canberra accept archives into their collections. "Collecting Canberra" involves a complex web of legislative responsibilities and institutional collecting policies which overlap and evolve. Where the archives of particular Canberra people or organisations might be found depends on when those archives became available for collection, the prevailing policies at the time, and the judgement, if not the whim, of individuals. It is not uncommon for Canberra people with "many hats" to be represented in a number of archives as a result of their multi-faceted roles and the overlapping collecting policies of institutions, but of more concern are the gaps between those collecting policies.