Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Critical Scholarship (critical + scholarship)
Selected AbstractsAn Appropriating Aesthetic: Reproducing Power in the Discourse of Critical ScholarshipCOMMUNICATION THEORY, Issue 3 2003Helene A. Shugart Critical theory and cultural studies have articulated a substantial and vital challenge to the very foundations of traditional scholarship, which remains rigidly scientistic in its orientation. One outcome of this challenge is that claims of subjectivity on the part of the critic are accommodated. The stylistic dimensions of critical scholarship, however, also are noteworthy, and their political implications are perhaps no less significant. The aforementioned relative latitude in content has not been accompanied by a concurrent loosening of aesthetic mores. In this article engaging critical rhetoric as a case study, I argue that the aesthetic conventions of scholarship, as imposed upon the unique, ideologically overt character of critical scholarship, constrain and even undermine the critical project. [source] Critically challenging some assumptions in HRDINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT, Issue 1 2006David O'Donnell This paper sets out to critically challenge five interrelated assumptions prominent in the (human resource development) HRD literature. These relate to: the exploitation of labour in enhancing shareholder value; the view that employees are co-contributors to and co-recipients of HRD benefits; the distinction between HRD and human resource management; the relationship between HRD and unitarism; and the relationship between HRD and organizational and learning cultures. From a critical modernist perspective, it is argued that these can only be adequately addressed by taking a point of departure from the particular state of the capital,labour relation in time, place and space. HRD, of its nature, exists in a continuous state of dialectical tension between capital and labour , and there is much that critical scholarship has yet to do in informing practitioners about how they might manage and cope with such tension. [source] Theorizing Diaspora: Perspectives on "Classical" and "Contemporary" DiasporaINTERNATIONAL MIGRATION, Issue 2 2004Michele Reis Cohen (1997) employed the term "classical" diaspora in reference to the Jews. Indeed, a vast corpus of work recognizes the Jewish people as examples of quintessential diasporic groups. However, a broader conceptualization of the term diaspora allows for the inclusion of immigrant communities that would be otherwise sidelined in the conventional literature on diaspora. This study is therefore a departure from the traditional diasporic literature, which tends to use the Jewish Diaspora as the archetype. It favours, rather, the classification of three principal broad historical waves in which the Jewish Diaspora can be interpreted as part of a classical period. The historicizing of diasporization for the purpose of this paper is achieved by an empirical discussion of the three major historical waves that influenced the diasporic process throughout the world: the Classical Period, the Modern Period, and the Contemporary or Late-modern Period. The paper discusses these three critical phases in the following manner: first, reference is made to the Classical Period, which is associated primarily with ancient diaspora and ancient Greece. The second historical phase analyses diaspora in relation to the Modern Period, which can be interpreted as a central historical fact of slavery and colonization. This section can be further subdivided into three large phases: (1) the expansion of European capital (1500,1814), (2) the Industrial Revolution (1815,1914), and (3) the Interwar Period (1914,1945). The final major period of diasporization can be considered a Contemporary or Late-modern phenomenon. It refers to the period immediately after World War II to the present day, specifying the case of the Hispanics in the United States as one key example. The paper outlines some aspects of the impact of the Latin American diaspora on the United States, from a socio-economic and politico-cultural point of view. While the Modern and Late-modern periods are undoubtedly the most critical for an understanding of diaspora in a modern, globalized context, for the purpose of this paper, more emphasis is placed on the latter period, which illustrates the progressive effect of globalization on the phenomenon of diasporization. The second period, the Modern Phase is not examined in this paper, as the focus is on a comparative analysis of the early Classical Period and the Contemporary or Late-modern Period. The incorporation of diaspora as a unit of analysis in the field of international relations has been largely neglected by both recent and critical scholarship on the subject matter. While a growing number of studies focus on the increasing phenomenon of diasporic communities, from the vantage of social sciences, the issue of diaspora appears to be inadequately addressed or ignored altogether. Certain key factors present themselves as limitations to the understanding of the concept, as well as its relevance to the field of international relations and the social sciences as a whole. This paper is meant to clarify some aspects of the definition of diaspora by critiquing the theories in the conventional literature, exposing the lacunae in terms of interpretation of diaspora and in the final analysis, establishing a historiography that may be useful in comparing certain features of "classical" diaspora and "contemporary" diaspora. The latter part of the paper is intended to provide illustrations of a contemporary diasporic community, using the example of Hispanics in the United States. [source] Bushwhacking the Ethical High Road: Conflict of Interest in the Practice of Law and Real LifeLAW & SOCIAL INQUIRY, Issue 1 2003Susan P. Shapiro A long-standing scholarly tradition regards professions, in general, and ethics rules, in particular, as "projects" of market control. It is no surprise, critics charge, that in the latest assault on the monopoly of the American legal profession,waged by multidisciplinary professional service firms,lawyers are hiding behind their ethics rules to protect their turf. In this article, I report on an extensive empirical study of conflict of interest in private legal practice and look comparatively at other fiduciaries, among them, accountants, psychotherapists, physicians, journalists, and academics. I investigate the role of ethics rules that seek to insure fiduciary loyalty in structuring the delivery of services. How does social and institutional change, roiling the fiduciary world, threaten disinterestedness and loyalty and how, if at all, do fiduciaries respond? How is the regulation of conflict of interest accomplished? Where are the conflicts rules most likely to be honored or ignored? What incentive structures encourage compliance? What are the costs and unexpected consequences of compliance? What is foregone? And is it all worth it? In what might come as a surprise to many, I find that the legal profession takes conflict of interest more seriously than many of the rest of us. As the title implies, legal practitioners largely travel alone, bushwhacking through the underbrush snarling the ethical high road. As critical scholarship predicted, lawyers do enjoy a monopoly at the end of the road. But this monopoly is achieved, not by restraint of trade or some other artifice or stratagem of market control, but by lack of competition. It seems that no one else is trudging alongside the lawyers. Lawyers are not necessarily more ethical than the others; they just behave more ethically,at least with respect to conflict of interest. The question is why. And what difference does it make? [source] An Appropriating Aesthetic: Reproducing Power in the Discourse of Critical ScholarshipCOMMUNICATION THEORY, Issue 3 2003Helene A. Shugart Critical theory and cultural studies have articulated a substantial and vital challenge to the very foundations of traditional scholarship, which remains rigidly scientistic in its orientation. One outcome of this challenge is that claims of subjectivity on the part of the critic are accommodated. The stylistic dimensions of critical scholarship, however, also are noteworthy, and their political implications are perhaps no less significant. The aforementioned relative latitude in content has not been accompanied by a concurrent loosening of aesthetic mores. In this article engaging critical rhetoric as a case study, I argue that the aesthetic conventions of scholarship, as imposed upon the unique, ideologically overt character of critical scholarship, constrain and even undermine the critical project. [source] Postcolonial Scholarship,Productions and Directions: An Interview With Gayatri Chakravorty SpivakCOMMUNICATION THEORY, Issue 3 2002Radha S. Hegde This interview took place on December 18, 2000, in Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's office at Columbia University, New York. In a room lined with books and papers stacked high, Spivak spoke about postcolonial scholarship and its global challenges. Spanning a diverse range of interests, Gayatri Spivak's work has influenced critical scholarship across multiple disciplines throughout the world. Her scholarship has significantly shaped the course of postcolonial thinking and has had profound impact on conceptualizing issues of culture, identity, communication, and transnationalism. When asked about her interest in the areas of global communication flows, new technologies, and the politics of culture, Spivak referred us to two of her recent essays where she writes about global cities and cyberliteracy in the journal Gray Room and in Judith Butler's edited volume What's Left of Theory. In this interview, we asked Spivak to speak to issues concerning the intersections between communication and postcoloniality. [source] So Real Illusions of Black Intellectualism: Exploring Race, Roles, and Gender in the AcademyCOMMUNICATION THEORY, Issue 1 2000Ronald L. Jackson II The absence of any written mainstream valuation of African American theories and historical relevancies presents a significant commentary and dilemma within the field of human communication studies and other disciplines as well. It forces committed African American intellectuals to ask ourselves if we have created a large enough arsenal of quality theories or if we have simply recycled theories produced by "observers" to describe our communicative behavior. If African American theories have been created, tested, and verified, then where are they, and why are they not being recognized by the academy? African American scholars must define what it means to be central to critical scholarship, determine whether this position has been achieved, and finally decide to continue to push the margins. This essay is to be read as an initial exploration that examines the sociopolitical factors of race and gender as contributing variables to the success of African American intellectualism. [source] | ||||||||||