2,117 research outputs found
Brooke Shields Addresses FIT Graduates
No full text2015 Commencement Speaker: Brooke Shields, Actor, Author, and Entrepreneur
Introduction: ‘Critical’ and ‘International Political Economy'.
No full textThere is no abstract, but this is a representative paragraph (from the introduction): 'Since the late 1970s, International Political Economy (IPE) has tended to be divided into those scholars who focus primarily upon empirical research questions in order to understand the dynamics of actors within the international system, and those who prefer to focus upon an ontological enquiry into its historical evolution. In recent developments this division has been extended into the ‘British’ and ‘American’ schools, or more vividly into the division of the ‘orthodox/heterodox’ or the ‘positivist’ and the ‘critical’ (Murphy and Nelson, 2001, 2002; Cohen, 2008), which in turn has led to concerns that such divisions might be overplayed (Higgott and Watson, 2008). The development of critical perspectives in IPE has brought with it interpretations that have drawn from Marx, Gramsci, Polanyi, Schumpeter and from poststructuralism (especially Foucault), and have been applied to a wide variety of cases. Yet, for all the work done in developing this critical ontology, precisely what binds the diversity of approaches remains confusing, as core analytical categories are too often assumed to be self-evident (for example, the critical method, methodological eclecticism, and a multidisciplinary approach).
IPE and the international political economy? IPE or the international political economy?
No full textThere is no abstract, but this is a representative paragraph (from the introduction): 'Our intention in bringing together this collection of scholars has been to begin a process of reflection on why volumes such as these are particularly timely in the current period, for both the discipline of IPE and the study of the international political economy. Although the debates on the ‘British’ and ‘American’ schools were an important catalyst for such reflections, they also built upon earlier marginalizations and silencings which were, in our view, unwarranted. Recall, for example, Robert Keohane’s more explicit invitation in the late 1980s to ‘reflectivist’ scholars to produce systematic research agendas and falsifiable claims as a means of engaging with the ‘rationalism’ dominant in IR – in other words, a demand for ‘post-positivist’ research to abandon its raison d'être and engage in narrow specifics which take for granted wider questions about the world in which we live. More recently, the explosion of contributions on ‘globalization’ tended to produce a neat conjuring trick, whereby a globalized world was (magically and tautologically) both the outcome – what needed to be explained – and the explanation of this outcome. In the process, alternative narratives were pushed to the sidelines (Rosenberg, 2000).
'Critical' and 'International Political Economy'
No full textThere is no abstract, but this is a representative paragraph (from the introduction): 'Since the late 1970s, International Political Economy (IPE) has tended to be divided into those scholars who focus primarily upon empirical research questions in order to understand the dynamics of actors within the international system, and those who prefer to focus upon an ontological enquiry into its historical evolution. In recent developments this division has been extended into the ‘British’ and ‘American’ schools, or more vividly into the division of the ‘orthodox/heterodox’ or the ‘positivist’ and the ‘critical’ (Murphy and Nelson, 2001, 2002; Cohen, 2008), which in turn has led to concerns that such divisions might be overplayed (Higgott and Watson, 2008). The development of critical perspectives in IPE has brought with it interpretations that have drawn from Marx, Gramsci, Polanyi, Schumpeter and from poststructuralism (especially Foucault), and have been applied to a wide variety of cases. Yet, for all the work done in developing this critical ontology, precisely what binds the diversity of approaches remains confusing, as core analytical categories are too often assumed to be self-evident (for example, the critical method, methodological eclecticism, and a multidisciplinary approach).
'Critical' and 'International Political Economy'
No full textThere is no abstract, but this is a representative paragraph (from the introduction): 'Since the late 1970s, International Political Economy (IPE) has tended to be divided into those scholars who focus primarily upon empirical research questions in order to understand the dynamics of actors within the international system, and those who prefer to focus upon an ontological enquiry into its historical evolution. In recent developments this division has been extended into the ‘British’ and ‘American’ schools, or more vividly into the division of the ‘orthodox/heterodox’ or the ‘positivist’ and the ‘critical’ (Murphy and Nelson, 2001, 2002; Cohen, 2008), which in turn has led to concerns that such divisions might be overplayed (Higgott and Watson, 2008). The development of critical perspectives in IPE has brought with it interpretations that have drawn from Marx, Gramsci, Polanyi, Schumpeter and from poststructuralism (especially Foucault), and have been applied to a wide variety of cases. Yet, for all the work done in developing this critical ontology, precisely what binds the diversity of approaches remains confusing, as core analytical categories are too often assumed to be self-evident (for example, the critical method, methodological eclecticism, and a multidisciplinary approach).
IPE and the international political economy? IPE or the international political economy?
No full textThere is no abstract, but this is a representative paragraph (from the introduction): 'Our intention in bringing together this collection of scholars has been to begin a process of reflection on why volumes such as these are particularly timely in the current period, for both the discipline of IPE and the study of the international political economy. Although the debates on the ‘British’ and ‘American’ schools were an important catalyst for such reflections, they also built upon earlier marginalizations and silencings which were, in our view, unwarranted. Recall, for example, Robert Keohane’s more explicit invitation in the late 1980s to ‘reflectivist’ scholars to produce systematic research agendas and falsifiable claims as a means of engaging with the ‘rationalism’ dominant in IR – in other words, a demand for ‘post-positivist’ research to abandon its raison d'être and engage in narrow specifics which take for granted wider questions about the world in which we live. More recently, the explosion of contributions on ‘globalization’ tended to produce a neat conjuring trick, whereby a globalized world was (magically and tautologically) both the outcome – what needed to be explained – and the explanation of this outcome. In the process, alternative narratives were pushed to the sidelines (Rosenberg, 2000).
IPE and the international political economy? IPE or the international political economy?
No full textThere is no abstract, but this is a representative paragraph (from the introduction): 'Our intention in bringing together this collection of scholars has been to begin a process of reflection on why volumes such as these are particularly timely in the current period, for both the discipline of IPE and the study of the international political economy. Although the debates on the ‘British’ and ‘American’ schools were an important catalyst for such reflections, they also built upon earlier marginalizations and silencings which were, in our view, unwarranted. Recall, for example, Robert Keohane’s more explicit invitation in the late 1980s to ‘reflectivist’ scholars to produce systematic research agendas and falsifiable claims as a means of engaging with the ‘rationalism’ dominant in IR – in other words, a demand for ‘post-positivist’ research to abandon its raison d'être and engage in narrow specifics which take for granted wider questions about the world in which we live. More recently, the explosion of contributions on ‘globalization’ tended to produce a neat conjuring trick, whereby a globalized world was (magically and tautologically) both the outcome – what needed to be explained – and the explanation of this outcome. In the process, alternative narratives were pushed to the sidelines (Rosenberg, 2000).
John Calvin, On the Christian Faith. Selections from the Institutes, Commentaries, and Tracts. Edited, with an Introduction by John T. McNeill Baruch Spinoza, On the Improvement of the Understanding. translated, with an Introduction, by Joseph Katz John Stuart Mill, Considerations on Representative Government. Edited with an Introduction by Currin V. Shields John Stuart Mill, Autobiography. With an Introduction by Currin V. Shields
No full textDopp Joseph. John Calvin, On the Christian Faith. Selections from the Institutes, Commentaries, and Tracts. Edited, with an Introduction by John T. McNeill Baruch Spinoza, On the Improvement of the Understanding. translated, with an Introduction, by Joseph Katz John Stuart Mill, Considerations on Representative Government. Edited with an Introduction by Currin V. Shields John Stuart Mill, Autobiography. With an Introduction by Currin V. Shields. In: Revue Philosophique de Louvain. Troisième série, tome 56, n°50, 1958. p. 338
Application of similarity principles and turbulence research to bed-load movement
No full textTranslation of the Ph.D. thesis of A. Shields "Anwendung der Aehnlichkeitsmechanik und der Turbulenzforschung auf die Geschiebebewegung"
- …
