scholarly journals Editorial

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Beate Reinertsen ◽  
Louise Thomas

 This special issue of Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodologies: Writing Organizations: Management, Leadership and Appraisal presents to readers seven articles with particular focus on ‘writing’ as a methodological tool. As guest editors, what encounters were we opening to/up when we invited contributions on writing as a methodological tool and writing about being/becoming in assemblages of leadership, management and appraisal? We hoped for a shift, an unsettling of what was thought of as ‘writing’. Semetsky and Stables draw on the concept of edusemiotics to challenge the traditional notion of writing; "While more often than not signs are taken as solely linguistic and in compliance with analytic philosophy of language, edusemiotics includes images, pictures and, indeed, anything that potentially signifies ..." (2014, p. 1)1. We called contributors to consider ‘writing’ as various edusemiotic, nomadic, embodied and embedded, artistic and scholarly gestures, experimentations, playful interventions, exchanges, encounters, ruminations, rhizomatic entanglements and practical philosophical discussions.

Daímon ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Pérez Navarro ◽  
María José Frapolli Sanz

Desde hace unos años, se ha producido dentro de la filosofía analítica un movimiento de acercamiento a las prácticas reales y de huida de las idealizaciones no justificadas que pretende poner las herramientas conceptuales desarrolladas durante el último siglo al servicio de la justicia social. En el ámbito de la filosofía del lenguaje, este giro ha pasado por el análisis de expresiones del lenguaje natural que, por no encajar de forma completamente satisfactoria con la concepción del significado como condiciones de verdad, han recibido tradicionalmente poca atención. Sin embargo, estas expresiones juegan un papel fundamental en la comunicación con impacto político. Hablamos de los expresivos, esto es, expresiones que se utilizan para comunicar una cierta actitud. El propósito de este número especial de Daimon es ofrecer una panorámica de algunos debates que se están desarrollando en la actualidad en relación con la dimensión política de los expresivos, pero también de discusiones cercanas que en ocasiones se solapan con esta, tanto en filosofía del lenguaje como en ramas de la filosofía afines. For some years now, there has been a movement within analytic philosophy to get closer to real practices and to flee from unwarranted idealizations in order to put the conceptual tools developed over the last century at the service of social justice. In the field of philosophy of language, this turn has involved the analysis of natural language expressions that, not fitting in a completely satisfactory way with the conception of meaning as truth conditions, have traditionally received little attention. However, these expressions play a fundamental role in communication with political impact. We are talking about expressives, that is, expressions that are used to communicate a certain attitude. The purpose of this special issue of Daimon is to offer an overview of some of the debates that are currently taking place in relation to the political dimension of expressives, but also of related discussions that sometimes overlap with it, both in philosophy of language and in related branches of philosophy.


2021 ◽  
pp. 001041402110255
Author(s):  
Diana Fu ◽  
Erica S. Simmons

How should we study contentious politics in an era rife with new forms of contention, both in the United States and abroad? The introduction to this special issue draws attention to one particularly crucial methodological tool in the study of contention: political ethnography. It showcases the ways in which ethnographic approaches can contribute to the study of contentious politics. Specifically, it argues that “what,” “how,” and “why” questions are central to the study of contention and that ethnographic methods are particularly well-suited to answering them. It also demonstrates how ethnographic methods push scholars to both expand the objects of inquiry and rethink what the relevant units of analysis might be. By uncovering hidden processes, exploring social meanings, and giving voice to unheard stories, ethnography and “ethnography-plus” approaches contribute to the study of contention and to comparative politics, writ large.


Semiotica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tadeusz Szubka

Abstract The paper begins with an account of the emergence of analytic philosophy of language in the twentieth century in the context of the development of logic and the linguistic turn. Subsequently, it describes two examples of analytic philosophy of language in its heyday when the discipline was conceived as first philosophy. Finally, it provides, by way of conclusion, a succinct outline of the current state of philosophy of language, marked by modesty and fragmentation. It is claimed that even if one retains optimism about the prospects of philosophy of language in the first century of the new millennium, it would be unreasonable to disagree with the opinion that the present-day philosophy of language is a highly specialized and diversified discipline and no longer so central for philosophical enterprise as it used to be.


2018 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Bendix Petersen

New materialist and posthuman research methodologies are quickly gaining traction in educational research. According to its proponents, new materialism takes us to radically new places of praxis as it reconfigures central notions such as data, researcher positioning and critique. Here I consider how the notion of ‘data’ is invoked in an example of new materialist research by education scholars. Through this critique, I come to question the extent to which the approach constitutes a reconfiguration or whether, instead, it is continuous with some old and problematic tropes. I wonder if the positioning of data as supremely agentic elides the new materialist insistence on intra-action and discuss some of the implications of that including the depoliticisation it entails.


2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 199-208
Author(s):  
Leila E. Ferguson

Abstract. In this commentary, I seek to join the ongoing conversation about evidence-informed educational practice that has been threaded through this special issue. I do so by drawing on related insights from the fields of teachers' beliefs and epistemic cognition and considering the roles of teacher education and educational research in improving (preservice) teachers' use of educational research. In particular, I focus on the merits of explicit research-based practice in teacher educators' teaching and ways that they can encourage preservice teachers' interactions with educational research in class, and methods of changing the beliefs that may underlie (preservice) teachers' engagement with educational research evidence, and finally, the need for clearly communicated research, including details of implementation.


Manuscrito ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
FÁBIO M. BERTATO ◽  
NICOLA CLAUDIO SALVATORE

2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 209-214
Author(s):  
Frank Fischer

Abstract. This discussion first highlights novel aspects that the individual articles contribute to the special issue on (future) teachers' choice, use, and evaluation of (non-)scientific information sources about educational topics. Among these highlights are the conceptualizations of epistemic goals and the type of pedagogical task as moderators of the selection and use of scientific evidence. The second part raises overarching questions, including the following: How inclusive do we want the concept of evidence to be? How should teachers use research evidence in their pedagogical problem-solving and decision-making? To what extent is multidisciplinary teacher education contributing to epistemological confusion, possibly leading to (pre-service) teachers' low appreciation of educational research?


Author(s):  
Eduardo Mendieta

Karl-Otto Apel (b. 1922–d. 2017) was one of the most original, influential, and renowned German philosophers of the post–World War II generation. He is credited with what is known as the linguistification of Kantian transcendental philosophy, in general, and the linguistic transformation of philosophy in Germany, in particular. His name is closely associated with that of Jürgen Habermas, his junior colleague, whom he met as a graduate student in Bonn in the 1950s, and with whom he maintained a lengthy philosophical collaboration. He received his doctorate in 1950 with a dissertation titled Dasein und Erkennen: Eine erkenntnistheoretische Interpretation der Philosophie Martin Heideggers (translated as: “Dasein and knowledge: An epistemological interpretation of Martin Heidegger’s philosophy”). However, as early as the 1950s, Apel had become increasingly critical of the relativistic and historicist consequences of his phenomenological and hermeneutical work. In 1962, he presented his Habilitation at the University of Mainz, which was published in 1963 as Die Idee der Sprache in der Tradition des Humanismus von Dante bis Vico (translated as: “The idea of language in the traditions of humanism from Dante to Vico”). This book is a pioneering reconstruction of the Italian philosophy of language and how it laid the foundations for the different currents of the philosophy of language that would branch out in the modern philosophies of language. In 1965, Apel published “Die Entfaltung der ‘sprachanalytischen’ Philosophie und das Problem der ‘Geisteswissenchaften,’” which was translated into English as Analytic Philosophy of Language and the “Geisteswissenschaften” in 1967. This was the first work of Apel to be translated into English, but it is also emblematic of Apel’s pioneering engagement with “analytic” philosophy. In 1973, at the urging of Habermas, Apel published Transformation der Philosophie (Transformation of philosophy) in two volumes. A selection, mostly from the second volume, appeared in 1983 under the title Towards a Transformation of Philosophy. In this work Apel introduced the idea that would become the hallmark of his thinking: The Apriori of the Community of Communication, by which he meant that the conditions of possibility of all knowledge and interaction are already given in every natural language that belongs to a community of speakers, who are per force already entangled in normative relations, that can never be circumvented or negated lest one commit a performative self-contradiction. In 1975, Apel published Der Denkweg von Charles S. Peirce: Eine Einführung in den amerikanischen Pragmatismus (The intellectual path of Charles S. Peirce: An introduction to American pragmatism), which is made up of the lengthy introduction he had written for his two-volume German selection and translation of Peirce’s writings. His next most important book was Diskurs und Verantwortung: Das Problem des Übergangs zur postkonventionellen Moral (translated as: “Discourse and responsibility: The problem of the transition to a postconventional morality”), from 1988, a collection of essays in which Apel develops his own version of discourse ethics. Apel’s last three books are collections of essays: Auseinandersetzungen in Erprobung des transzendentalpragmatischen Ansatzes (1998) [Confrontations: Testing the transcendental-pragmatic proposal) (It should be noted that Auseinandersetzungen, one of Apel’s favorite words, could also be translated as “coming to terms” with a particular thinker. This is an important volume as in three extensive essays Apel discusses his differences with and departures from Habermas’s version of universal pragamatics.); Paradigmen der Ersten Philosophie: Zur reflexiven–transzendentalpragmatischen Rekonstruktion der Philosophiegeschichte (2011) (translated as: “Paradigms of first philosophy: Toward a reflexive-transcendental-pragmatic reconstruction of the history of philosophy”), and Transzendentale Reflexion und Geschichte (2017) (translated as: Transcendental reflection and history”).


Author(s):  
Jan Wolenski

Twardowski, one of the most distinguished of Brentano’s students, became famous for his distinction between the content and object of presentations. Twardowski, after his appointment as a professor of philosophy at the University of Lwów (Lvov), considerably limited his own philosophical research for the sake of teaching activities. He set himself an ambitious task: to create a scientific philosophy in Poland. Twardowski fully realized his aim, giving the first step towards the so-called Lwów–Warsaw School, a group of philosophers working in analytic philosophy – in particular, logic, philosophy of science, and philosophy of language. In spite of his concentration on teaching, Twardowski also made remarkable contributions to philosophy after coming to Lwów.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document