Since 1951, the Silesian Land Museum in Opava has been publishing its own journal. Ethnographic studies have been part of the journal’s focus from the very beginning. The studies cover museum collections in the territory of Silesia and also field documentation and research carried out in Silesia by distinguished Czechoslovak ethnographers (Drahomíra Stránská, Zdena Vachová, Josef Vařeka, etc.). A bibliography of these contributions from the years 1951-2001 was made up by Eva Ševčíková. All in all, 125 articles and studies were included. They cover ethnography but also related disciplines which touch folk culture or widen our knowledge of its historical forms. These articles were supplemented by 73 selected reviews devoted mostly to regional literature.
Although there seems to be broad agreement within the discipline about the desirability of a public anthropology, there is less certainty, or agreement, not only about how to achieve it in a responsible way but also about its very raison- d’être. What should an anthropology which engages closely with non-academic publics seek to achieve? Starting with a historical overview, the article argues that the lack of a clear societal task or assignment liberates anthropology from problem solving for the state, enabling it to stimulate the collective imagination by making bold comparisons and unexpected conjectures. The empirical examples from Norway show how public anthropologists can successfully mix the ‘light’ and the ‘heavy’ in getting their argument across and raising anthropological issues while also engaging with a broad, non-academic public.
The text mediates the author’s ‘personal sociological perspective’ based on his generation experience. It contemplates present-day sociology and a range of possibilities for applying sociological approaches to other humanities disciplines.
Although there seems to be broad agreement within the discipline about the desirability of a public anthropology, there is less certainty, or agreement, not only about how to achieve it in a responsible way but also about its very raison- d’être. What should an anthropology which engages closely with non-academic publics seek to achieve? Starting with a historical overview, the article argues that the lack of a clear societal task or assignment liberates anthropology from problem solving for the state, enabling it to stimulate the collective imagination by making bold comparisons and unexpected conjectures. The empirical examples from Norway show how public anthropologists can successfully mix the ‘light’ and the ‘heavy’ in getting their argument across and raising anthropological issues while also engaging with a broad, non-academic public.
In this study we concentrate on the reasons for the focus on the therapeutical potential of philosophy in the current period. Among the key causes of the renewed and growing interest in the therapeutical perception of philosophy we give special weight to opportunities stemming from the development of interdisciplinarity and the ever-closer relations of philosophy with certain therapeutical approaches, as well as the confrontation of philosophy with socio-economic and utilitarian pressures in society and the problematising of the task and justification of philosophy in the context of other scientific enterprises. In the study we attempt to indicate some therapeutical aspects of philosophy and philosophising (such as the satisfying function of knowledge, the satisfying aspect of caring about and sharing problems with others, together with the need for the practical application of the findings and the practical aspect of wisdom), which predispose philosophy to the development of its therapeutical potential of philosophy as therapy by thought.
Redclift (2011) provided a timely and perhaps deliberately provocative overview of sociological writings on climate change and the disciplinary problems of a post carbon world for environmental sociology. This comment emphasizes that he never actually clarifies what exactly are those problems that sociology faces in its attempt to open up a space for itself in the field of climate research. This omission also leads to unnecessary claims regarding the state of social science research on climate change as well as unspecified calls for more interdisciplinarity in sociological analysis of contemporary societies’ carbon dependence.
The aim of this paper is to discuss connections between economics and pedagogy. A number of them is pointed out, although the most important factor within all the connections is the role of this sciences in regards to human life. Economics as well as pedagogy are concentrated on improving the quality of people’s life.
Our paper outlines an updated picture of the translations from Serbian into Romanian, and also points out the most common concepts belonging to the most notorious translators and the specific particularities of their translation manners. The goal of our research is to identify reference points in the evolution of translations, i.e. from theories to methods and procedures of translation. Thus, we intend to evaluate the contribution of some translators as well as to mention some general aspects that characterize their methodology. Among the aspects that we are going to research are the level of adequacy and representativeness of their translations, and the way in which they apply the functional principle of preserving the information from the original.
Theatre is a source to which teachers often turn for fresh ideas and methods. This study tries to unfold and follow the path which leads from theatre and drama to institutional education, and reveal the complex interdisciplinary connections and relations which have made it possible to use some of the experiences and methods accumulated in the field of actor training and applied drama and theatre in teaching English for specific purposes.
The aim of the paper is to criticize Stanley Fish's views on interdisciplinarity (particularly as far as his account of interdisciplinarity in literary studies is concerned). The first part of the article consists of: (a) a summary of his critique of the so-called religion of interdisciplinarity; (b) a description of Fish's theory of disciplinarity that underlies this critique. In the second part of the article, I provide a criticism of Fish's theory. I begin by presenting some counterexamples to it. Then I attempt to demonstrate that Fish's views are self-refuting. Finally, I argue that besides these theoretical reasons, there is also a practical reason why Fish's position needs to be questioned.
Psychology is one of the victorious sciences and professions of 20th Century. Still, form its onset on doubts are accompanying its possibility, its assumed intellectual sterility, and practical sterility. These doubts reemerge today. However, one is able to ironically refute them not in the name of the oppressed and endangered, but in the light of clearer professional identity. In the second half of the 19th Century, the naissant psychology was challenged on the one hand by Comte claiming that its supposed contents could be divided between sociology and neurobiology, while on the other hand by Dilthey, Frege, and Husserl who considered it to be intellectually plain and lacking phantasy. These challenges were dealt with in mid-twentieth century by the three aspect theory of Karl Bühler (experience, behavior, and objectivations) and by the role of cultural mediation in the theory of Lev Vygotsky, and later on by Jean Piaget with his cross disciplinary position of psychology. Amongst these interpretive debates, the show went on undisturbed. During the early stages of the last century the best theoreticians took part in forming the practical profession of modern psychology. Binet, Ebbinghaus, Stern, S. Freud, Lewin, Lurija, Bowlby, while being outstanding theoretical researchers, played a crucial role in the formation of the basic frames of the profession as well, in a similar way as Ferenczi, Szondi, Harkai or Mérei in Hungary. The threats and challenges towards psychology never stopped while professional psychology was being formed. Just think of the dubious victories of Pavlovianism in the East-European countries, or the insatiable hunger of pedagogy this ethernel dedicated formator of humanity. All of this is merely the past to be remembered by historians of psychology. On the present day intellectual landscape, psychology is again challenged and questioned form two directions. In science, the new interdisciplinary field seem to digest psychology. Cognitive science, neuro-philosophy, and neuroscience all tend to question the independent future of psychology. Once we would know everything, there will not be anything but neural patterns of excitations, though in fact the real gurus of neuroscience like Gazzaniga and Ramachandran question the victorious nature of the reductionism of their own field. Experimental psychologists should not panic when witnessing the questioning of their existence partly initiated by them. The neural interpretation of man can indeed provide a causal model of behavior, but only the psychological interpretation of behavior can account for what do we have a causal model of, e.g. in the fMRI magnet, is the person reading, flirting, or fighting. And this is further complicated by the subjective experiences of the subject accompanying these behaviors. The other threat of today comes from the half-prepared representatives of rival professions, from trainers, coaches, and gurus of all sorts. Present day psychology should clearly see that it is not involved in a freedom fight any more, but it protects a clear professional image. With regard to intellectual reductionisms, it protects the idea that psychological science is supported in its identity by an existing profession, while there are no professions of cognitive scientist, or neuroscientist. Against the half-trained professional rivals it should claim that in the profession of psychology, in line with the ancestors mentioned, theoretical foundations have their place. Psychologists are not technicians or paramedics of behavior, but its engineers and doctors.
The multiplicity of opinions, discussions and disputes conducted around and within geography didactics encourages it being viewed as theoretically uncertain and focused on fulfilment of educational practices. In this text I intend to embed these controversies in the framework of disciplines underlying it: geography (in the classical and “modern” understanding), pedagogy (in the traditional and progressive perspectives) and psychology (with the orientations applied in education: practical and interpretative), with a view to showing that perceiving geography didactics essentially through the prism of teaching methods of a school subject means confining it within boundaries of stereotypes and departs from the current and potential directions of development. Whilst exposure of its interdisciplinarity leads to discursive construction of geography didactics being opened, taking into account also ongoing cultural, social and economic changes. Taking them into consideration renders didactics adequate to contemporary reality and thus capable of (a) interesting pupils in geography, (b) responding to their intellectual needs and possibilities.
PL
Wielość opinii, dyskusji i sporów toczonych wokół oraz w obrębie dydaktyki geografii, sprzyja ujmowaniu jej jako teoretycznie niepewnej oraz ukierunkowanej głównie na realizowanie praktyk edukacyjnych. W opracowaniu te kontrowersje zamierzam osadzić w ramach leżących u jej podstaw dyscyplin naukowych: geografii (w rozumieniu: klasycznym i „nowoczesnym”), pedagogiki (w ujęciach: tradycyjnym i postępowym) oraz psychologii (ze stosowanymi w edukacji orientacjami: praktyczną i interpretatywną), by wykazać, że postrzeganie dydaktyki geografii przez pryzmat głównie metodyki nauczania przedmiotu szkolnego, jest zamykaniem jej w granicach stereotypów i odbiega od jej aktualnych oraz potencjalnych kierunków rozwoju. Natomiast wyeksponowanie jej interdyscyplinarności prowadzi do otwarcia na dyskursywną konstrukcję dydaktyki geografii, uwzględniającą także zachodzące obecnie przemiany kulturowe, społeczne i gospodarcze. Ich uwzględnienie czyni dydaktykę adekwatną do współczesnych realiów i tym samym zdolną: (a) zainteresować uczniów geografią, (b) odpowiedzieć na ich intelektualne potrzeby oraz możliwości.
Aim. The aim of this work is to present a qualitative analysis of the creative educational materials prepared by preservice teachers in the context of an educational experience around a museum exhibition about Science and Literature, described in a previous work (Authors, 2020). The responses to a final questionnaire about interdisciplinarity, integration of Sciences and Arts or the use of museums for children’s education are also analysed. Methods. The participants were 121 alumni of two different subjects “Natural Sciences for teachers” and “Literary training for teachers” at a Spanish university. Preservice teachers had to select an item of the museum exhibition and, as a group, prepare a catalogue intended for children, where they had to write a short text related to the object and activities for children in an exercise of didactic transposition. The students generated teaching materials with a high component of creativity and a multimodal approach, with a mixture of linguistic and non-linguistic codes. The qualitative analysis of these creative teaching materials was carried out with Atlas.ti v8. To assess the experience a questionnaire about different aspects of the proposal was completed by the students at the end of the semester. Results and conclusion. The analysis of the teaching materials demonstrates differences between the alumni attending both subjects in the type of items selected, the literary genre of the short text and the prepared activities. The responses to the final questionnaire give us an insight on the reasons for the item selection and show how most of the students considered the experience as very interesting and formative. We can conclude that the educational experience here described served as an exercise to internalise the benefits of this method and, at the same time, adapt it for their future students in Primary Education.
he editorial outlines the main theme of the volume: the problem of relations between socio-cultural anthropology and history. Presents briefly the subject of particular articles in the 8th issue of RAH.
Reprint: Histoire et anthropologie, nouvelles convergences?, „Revue d'Histoire Moderne & Contemporaine”, t. 49-4 bis, supplément 2002, (Bulletin de la Société d'Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine), s. 81–120.
This article introduces the special issue for Ethics in Progress entitled Environment, ethics, and sustainability: Crossroads of our future. Despite four decades of intense development in the field of academic and professional environmental ethics, environmental problems pose ever increasing ethical challenges. The discipline continues to undergo a transition from focusing on theoretical questions such as what kinds of beings deserve moral standing toward greater inclusion of the multifaceted dimensions of sustainability and environmental issues and policy formation. In this introductory paper, we present the development, some of the key disciplinary debates, and the continuing and emerging challenges in environmentalism as it intersects with sustainability. We emphasize the importance of increasing the range of interdisciplinary perspectives brought to bear on practical ethics. The papers included in this special issue reflect both the challenges that arise as environmental ethics continues to expand and explore new issues at the intersection of ethics, sustainability, and environmental research, and the interdisciplinarity required in our search to better understand matters related to environmental history, environmental inequalities, social and environmental value conflict, inter-generational justice, and ethical components of the human relationship with the world.
Contemporary humanities are confronted with a search for new forms of legitimization. Processes that enforce such a necessity stem from the technicization of contemporary culture. The methodologies of the humanities, and even their status as a group of academic disciplines, are questionable. The aim of the article is to argue that these external and internal problems in the humanities are interlinked with the state of being after the end of theory. This assumption is grounded on the thesis that the humanities need to find a solution to the impasse which could be described as the questions of what theory means and why society should be concerned about it.
The paper discusses several methodological problems in the necessary (mostly metaphorical) transfer of concepts from one discipline (or subdiscipline) into another one, especially when interdisciplinary research demands mutual understanding in terms of translation and correspondence of concepts. After differentiating between multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity, the first is rejected and it is pleaded that the second and third should be combined. Several adequate and inadequate transfers of concepts into linguistics are dealt with, especially in the areas of morphology and language acquisition. Successful transfer is characterised by the formal transfer of new terms and their easy adaptation to already existing linguistic conceptions, especially between subdisciplines. Most often, further important differentiations of a concept cannot be transferred from the original discipline but must be added as enrichments within linguistics itself. This may lead to a split-up of concepts in different subdisciplines of linguistics. The concepts discussed are regression, self-organization, complexity, transparency vs. opacity, figure and ground, top-down processing, default, input, grammaticalisation.
Analiza idei interdyscyplinarności wskazuje na jej blaski i cienie, przynajmniej, gdy ujmujemy ją z pozycji dyscyplinarnej tożsamości i wymogów z tym związanych o obrębie określonej dziedziny nauki. Interdyscyplinarność jako nastawienie badawcze rodzi bowiem nadzieję bardziej kompleksowego i adekwatnego ujęcia badanych rzeczy, stanów rzeczy, procesów lub zjawisk, ale wyłania również dylematy i zagrożenia „rozpłynięcia się” swoistości nastawień badawczych właściwych określonej dziedzinie nauki. Wiedza pedagogiczna z natury oparta jest jednak na wiedzy zaczerpniętej z innych podstawowych dziedzin nauki takich, jak biologia, psychologia, socjologia czy filozofia. Pomijając trudności i dylematy wynikające z interdyscyplinarnych nastawień badawczych, przyjąć należy, że w obrębie dyskursu pedagogicznego nie tylko jest ona nieunikniona, ale i konieczna z punktu widzenia jakości, adekwatności i trafności, zarówno konstruowanej teorii, jak i projektowanej praktyki.
EN
Analysis of the idea of interdisciplinarity demonstrates both its flaws and qualities, at least when we approach it from the point of view of disciplinary identity and the related requirements within a specific discipline of science. Interdisciplinarity as a research approach raises hope for a more comprehensive and adequate understanding of the research subjects, states of objects, affairs, processes or phenomena; yet it also contributes to the emergence of new dilemmas and a risk of “dissolution” of characteristics of research specific to a given scientific discipline. Pedagogical discourse by its very nature, however, is based on knowledge derived from other basic sciences, such as biology, psychology, sociology, and philosophy. Notwithstanding the difficulties and dilemmas arising from interdisciplinary research approach, it should be assumed that within pedagogical discourse its adoption is not only inevitable, but also necessary for the quality, accuracy and validity of both the constructed theories and planned practical applications.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.