Suchergebnisse

The paper proposes to expand the constructivist view from empirical analysis to pragmatic advice. Its main thesis is: The fact that methods and concepts in the production of knowledge and standards for justifying truth claims are culturally bound does not preclude these bonds from being observed and also controlled and adjusted. Knowledge work imports scientific methods and concepts into virtually all segments of society. Whether knowledge is well manufactured and trustworthy is no longer the sole concern of scientific communities but of clients, stakeholder groups, political bodies, and other actors. The paper begins with reconsidering the symmetry principle of the Strong Programme from a methodological point of view. It argues that excluding justified beliefs from the realm of independent variables is unwarranted. Even if it is impossible to introduce truth as a cause, it is possible to accept justifications of beliefs as causes. In a second line of analysis, this paper explores that the concept of cultural relativity of knowledge has an internal instability. Every lesson in cultural relativism is a lesson in designing cognitive strategies to transcend it. The better the social construction of scientific knowledge is understood and even causally explained, the better reflexive abstraction opens up possibilities to operate with this causality and loosen or tighten the cultural bonds. Examples demonstrate that crossing established boundaries and aiming at higher degrees of cultural independency are as meaningful as value based restrictions to smaller domains. It is in this context that constructivism has a future as a frame for deliberative forms of knowledge construction and justification.

International audience ; Pragmatic constructivism is characterized in a particular epistemology based on the quest for parametric objectivity. In Peter Knoepfel's public policy analysis, this theoretical perspective relates to the study of the construction of marks of objectivity (that is, the measures contained in or inferred by a policy: problems, criteria, procedures, mechanisms, norms) which, according to him, make up the substance of policies. The place granted to the concepts of 'actors', 'resources' and 'institutional rules' in the proposed analytical framework is a clear illustration of this (Knoepfel, Larrue & Varone, 2006). However, this quest is unlikely to be successful if there is no empirical endeavour to explain the interactions between the three concepts. This is why Peter Knoepfel has constantly formulated the equation between actors, resources and rules, in operationalizable terms – in both his research work carried out in close proximity to public action (through various mandates) and in his teaching in Switzerland and abroad. The policy analysis defended by him is constantly shaped by a pragmatic perspective. The aim is to gain insight into concrete (observable) practices, through which actors produce a shared normative signification, particularly in terms of an hypothesis on problem causation (who or what is 'guilty' or 'objectively responsible' for the collective problem to be resolved?) and an hypothesis on state intervention (how can the collective problem be alleviated or resolved?). This pragmatism is located in a constant effort at methodological operationalization, which is systematically aimed at exploring the explanation for this trilogy (actors, resources, rules) and its interactions as a pragmatic concept. Peter Knoepfel always expects the explanation of a policy to cite factors that are important. For him the idea of importance (as for the pragmatists, Hilary Putnam (1990) in particular) is always dependent on the reason for asking the question why? In this instance, why ...

International audience ; Pragmatic constructivism is characterized in a particular epistemology based on the quest for parametric objectivity. In Peter Knoepfel's public policy analysis, this theoretical perspective relates to the study of the construction of marks of objectivity (that is, the measures contained in or inferred by a policy: problems, criteria, procedures, mechanisms, norms) which, according to him, make up the substance of policies. The place granted to the concepts of 'actors', 'resources' and 'institutional rules' in the proposed analytical framework is a clear illustration of this (Knoepfel, Larrue & Varone, 2006). However, this quest is unlikely to be successful if there is no empirical endeavour to explain the interactions between the three concepts. This is why Peter Knoepfel has constantly formulated the equation between actors, resources and rules, in operationalizable terms – in both his research work carried out in close proximity to public action (through various mandates) and in his teaching in Switzerland and abroad. The policy analysis defended by him is constantly shaped by a pragmatic perspective. The aim is to gain insight into concrete (observable) practices, through which actors produce a shared normative signification, particularly in terms of an hypothesis on problem causation (who or what is 'guilty' or 'objectively responsible' for the collective problem to be resolved?) and an hypothesis on state intervention (how can the collective problem be alleviated or resolved?). This pragmatism is located in a constant effort at methodological operationalization, which is systematically aimed at exploring the explanation for this trilogy (actors, resources, rules) and its interactions as a pragmatic concept. Peter Knoepfel always expects the explanation of a policy to cite factors that are important. For him the idea of importance (as for the pragmatists, Hilary Putnam (1990) in particular) is always dependent on the reason for asking the question why? In this instance, why ...

Cognitive development theories differ on how young students can meaningfully process new information and retain that information for future knowledge-building through scaffolding within their zone of proximal development. More traditional theories like the cognitive load theory adhere to the rote memorization approach by categorizing students as passive learners and the teachers as initiators who provide information in a structured, often rigid format, to be stored and retrieved for future application using their working memory. In contrast, the more progressive theories, like constructivism, are premised on the belief that students should proactively initiate their own learning while teachers act more as facilitators. The current trend in government policy under ESSA is to embrace the latter approach in the classroom, which is also more inclusive of all types of students, especially neurodiverse students. Moreover, teachers can utilize the wider range of assistive technology tools to accommodate and support their students' unique learning styles.

Norms, Reasons and Constructivism. Constructivism and Objectivity. Varieties of Constructivism. Constructivism and Its Premises. Re-Defining Constructivism. ; Norms, Reasons and Constructivism. Constructivism and Objectivity. Varieties of Constructivism. Constructivism and Its Premises. Re-Defining Constructivism. ; LUISS PhD Thesis

This article connects J. S. Mill's democratic theory and practice with the contemporary debate surrounding representative constructivism and argues that Mill's advocacy of female suffrage affords an empirical example of the mobilization power of representative constructivism. Studying this concrete example of constructivism alongside Mill's theory of political representation clarifies that constructivism is democratic to the extent it seeks to make citizens themselves appropriate and contest the claims that their representatives construct on their behalf.

Constructivism is regarded as increasingly important in International Relations. More often than not the approach is related to the issue of identity. Constructivism and identity are, however, in a dangerous liaison. This article argues that Alexander Wendt's constructivism needs identity as a central concept but that this very concept threatens to undermine the possibility of his constructivism. It is further suggested that this problem has some relevance to other constructivist approaches positioned in the middle ground between rationalist and reflectivist theorizing. The argument is illustrated with a consideration of the debates around the redefinition of the role of the Federal Republic of Germany to include the possibility of German military involvement abroad.

This concept paper originates from a bigger documentation, and it attempts to examine the importance of constructivism in building intellectual leaders of characters in Malaysia. It analyses the history and evolution of constructivism. Various theories of learning have been considered but constructivism is imperative as it provides strong theoretical as well as pedagogical links to various methods to teaching and learning. Due to the nature of this paper, it adopts content analysis as its methodological approach. It is found that constructivism offers learning and training principles that suit a military learning environment, referred to by scholars in European countries as military pedagogy. This is because all criteria that are critical for building 'the guardians' of a nation, who must be intellectual leaders of characters, such as meaningful classroom engagement, higher order thinking skills, and collaboration, derive from constructivism. Article DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2017.s31.467480 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.

In this dissertation I show that constructivist liberal philosophers are confronted by a dilemma. On the one hand, the conceptions of persons that they appeal to are so thin that contradictory conclusions can be derived from those very same conceptions. Where one philosopher thinks that his or her conception excludes the capitalistic economic liberties from the list of basic rights, it is possible to show with great plausibility the opposite conclusion and vice-versa. The status of the capitalist economic liberties carries significant implications not only for the structure of the economy but also for the place and role of other normative values that more directly affect other areas of life. If it can be shown that a conception of persons leads to contradictory results when it comes to the status of the economic liberties in particular, then the general shape of society will change in significant and inevitable ways as well. In order to avoid this horn of the dilemma, some philosophers seek to thicken their conceptions of persons. In doing so, I maintain that they come to beg too many questions and subsequently undermine whatever normative conclusions they sought to derive from their conception of persons. I analyze this connection within the context of the theories of political philosophers writing from different traditions of liberal thought. To do so I first distinguish between how the concept of personhood has been employed in moral philosophy as opposed to political philosophy. The chapters then move from liberal theories more progressively oriented, such as John Rawls's theory of justice, to more moderate positions, such as John Tomasi's market democracy, to Robert Nozick's libertarianism. In the first two cases I argue that the conceptions of persons employed by Rawls and Tomasi are thin, and that it is possible to show that their conceptions lead to conclusions in conflict with their own stated positions. In the case of libertarianism, I argue that libertarians generally construe self-ownership thickly ...

Ie terme « constructivisme », qui se répand aujourd'hui dans la littérature théorique des relations internationales, dénote une contestation des postulats strictement matérialistes ou individualistes, supposée permettre de mieux comprendre les changements observés dans la politique mondiale. Nous ne cherchons pas ici à en imposer une définition hégémonique, mais à amorcer une discussion « constructive », justement, sur ses possibilités et ses limites. Loin d'occulter ou d'estomper les divergences entre les chercheurs qui ont adopté cette approche, nous tâchons de les clarifier, car nous considérons que cette complexité, voire ces tensions donnent naissance à une « conversation » fructueuse. À cette fin, nous retracerons brièvement les origines interdisciplinaires de l'approche constructiviste en relations internationales en mettant en évidence ses traits distinctifs. Puis nous nous intéresserons plus particulièrement à deux controverses opposant les constructivistes aux autres théoriciens des RI : les origines des intérêts et le rôle des agents de changement. Nous situerons, à cette occasion, le constructivisme par rapport au matérialisme et au rationalisme. Nous proposerons aussi des pistes de réflexion tant sur le fond que sur la méthode. Enfin nous explorerons brièvement les implications de notre discussion en termes d'agents et d'intérêts sur l'identité et le rôle de la société dans la politique internationale.

El Lissitzky opened his essay Art and Pangeometry by writing that "in the period between 1918 and 1921, a lot of old rubbish was destroyed."[1] This quote encapsulates the tumult of the early twentieth-century, when many long-established orders were overturned, not the least of which were both artistic and scientific in nature. Revolutions in the spheres of politics, mathematics, physics, and art combined in the vanguard movement of Russia known as Constructivism. This movement grew in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and thrived in Russia until Stalin took power in 1924. Thereafter, Modernism in general lost favor and was either curtailed or moved elsewhere. Constructivism was influenced by the concurrent debates and developments in modern mathematics and physics, particularly of the fourth dimension and non-Euclidean geometry. Both of these disciplines revolutionized modern conceptions of time and space. There were three primary ways in which artists used these modern studies. First, they were powerful metaphors for the spirit of change and rebellion rampant in the country's revolutionary atmosphere. Furthermore, they provided artists a new vocabulary of shapes, forms, and spaces which were imbued with that same spirit of revolution. Lastly, artists used these ideas to inform their own artistic theories and to create an art for the new Russian society and its people. They used mathematics and physics for a number of reasons and in a number of ways. This essay discusses this relationship of non-Euclidean geometry and space in a selection of works by Constructivist artists Naum Gabo and Aleksandr Rodchenko.

The presentation details the approaches of a new postgraduate distance learning programme, which includes exploration into the phenomenon of digital events. We explore the rise of online learning in event studies alongside the rise of digital events, mapping the evolving drive for co-creation in events practice with co-creation in participatory learning experiences, both facilitated through social media and activated through networked event co-design. As Events Management and Critical Event Studies come of age, we find ourselves in a new era of critical discourse, in part defined by an expansion from established modes of thinking about events to a more nuanced understanding of them as social, cultural and political phenomena, planned and unplanned, physical and virtual. On the MA Creative Events Management at Falmouth University, our approach is underpinned by a reading of events as societal disruptions (Robinson 2012), which broadens our potential landscape for analysis and delivery (Lamond & Spracklen 2015, Pernecky 2016). Social constructivism informs the instructional design of the programme, developed to feature collaborative elaboration through collectivism and connectivism, with focus placed on social aspects of online learning by engendering communication and cooperation in digital spaces. The programme explores digital events from a range of critical and managerial perspectives, and students in online communities of practice define the parameters, nature and possibilities of, digital events. We suggest that this collective body of thought, arrived at through discussion and digital event design and delivery, exists as a repository of active research, contributing to the nascent literature addressing this newest of phenomena.

International audience ; This article discusses the methodological differences between the British school and the American school of international relations. It attempts to demonstrate that Susan Strange, representative of the British school, could be considered a critical realist. The aim of the article is to show that her vision of international political economy fulfills the methodological reorientation initiated in economics by Tony Lawson at the end of the 90s. Strange's radical ontology claims that structural power determines human actions. The paper contrasts Strange's approach with that of John Ruggie, from the American school, who identifies himself as a social constructivist. Ruggie emphasizes the role of ideational factors in international relations and the constructed nature of social reality.

- ; There are two very different stories that can be told about EU security policy during 2003. On the one hand, some argue that the deep division among important EU countries in relation to the Iraq war is a final confirmation of the absence of an EU security policy. On the other hand, some argue that the last year has been a year of considerable intensity in relation to EU security policy – despite the fact that EU cannot yet be characterised as a unitary actor. One of the reasons for these very different stories is that they are based on fundamentally different ideas and theories about the basic mechanisms in international relations. In this paper Pernille Rieker will contrast how two different approaches, namely Rationalistism and Social constructivism would analyse EU security policy. The paper starts with a short presentation of the meta-theoretical foundation of these approaches. The second part discusses how each of them views the conditions for multilateral cooperation and security. In the third part these perspectives on EU security policy will be discussed and some empirical data that support each of them will be presented. Finally, the paper ends on a discussion concerning whether these approaches must be seen as being alternative or complementary approaches.

The paper proposes to reconsider the methodology and history of economics radically, whether present day mainstream or heterodox versions of it. The profession of economists must definitely abandon Cartesian dualism and adopt Vygotskian constructivism. In fact constructivist economics already existed in the past and was cognitively very successful and socially very useful. It was the economics of Gustav Schmoller's historico-ethical school and the institutionalist economics of John R. Commons, traditions of which are totally ignored by the contemporary community of economists. The former tradition was based on Dilthey's hermeneutics and the latter on Peirce's pragmatism. It is worth to underline that hermeneutics and pragmatism are both predecessors of Vygotskian constructivism. During the last two decades a lot was written by economists on pragmatist, constructivist and discursive approaches to the methodology and history of economics, but those who wrote on these topics viewed them from the dualistic point of view. My paper is an appeal to economists to reconsider Methodenstreit. The dispute of methods between Schmoller and Menger can be considered as a repetition of a similar dispute taking place more than two hundred years earlier between Robert Boyle and Thomas Hobbes. Schmoller-Menger dispute started soon after the beginning of the institutionalisation of experimentally-oriented economics which happened with the creation in 1873 of the Vereinfür Sozialpolitik. Boyle-Hobbes dispute started in 1660, when the Royal Society of London had been founded, the cradle of the institution of science. Schmoller was one of the creators of the Verein, and Boyle was one of the founders of the Royal Society. The activities of both societies were similar in several respects: they represented efforts to collect data, working out of detailed reports and collective evaluation of obtained results. For Hobbes, as for Menger, the model of 'science' was geometry. Boyle and Schmoller privileged collecting and analysing data. Boyle did win the dispute, Schmoller did loose. It happened because of different attitudes of powerful groups in societies towards natural scientific experimental research and experimental social research. They were interested in the former, and they saw much more danger than benefit for them in the latter. On the contrary, they were interested in abstract theoretical constructions justifying the market vision of society and laissez-faire. This kind of constructions corresponded to deeply enrooted scholastic traditions of European universities to teach theology and linked with it philosophy. In the framework of these traditions, mathematics was considered as a summit of the scientific approach. On the one hand, the adoption of constructivism by economists would turn their discipline into a science functionally close to natural sciences. On the other hand the Vygotskian constructivism, as a social and political philosophy, once accepted by economists, may lead them to become preachers of the communitarian liberalism with its emphasis on social responsibility, deliberative democracy, and discourse ethics. © 2015 The Journal of Economic Theory.