1,720,962 research outputs found
Posibilidades y facilidades de uso (affordances ) del aprendizaje móvil en la educación superior
Get PDFMobile learning or M-learning benefits from the ubiquity of ICTs, consequently it is not bounded in space and time. In this way, M-learning could foster connection and interaction “on the move”. M-learning addresses the way this type of education leads to the acquisition of meaningful learning. The aim of this article is to better understand the affordances of M-learning in undergraduate studies in Ecuador. By unfolding the varied affordances of M-learning, the outcomes suggest that blending formal instruction with informal learning leads to encouraging, accessible and cooperative effective and meaningful learning in any field of knowledge.El aprendizaje móvil (M-learning) se beneficia de la ubicuidad de las TIC, en consecuencia “rompe” con las barreras de espacio y tiempo, fomentando la conexión e interacción "en movimiento". La comprensión del M-learning se enfoca en la manera cómo esta metodología de enseñanza puede conducir al aprendizaje significativo. El objetivo de este artículo es indagar sobre las posibilidades de uso (affordances) del M-learning en estudios de pregrado en el Ecuador. Los resultados sugieren que al juntar la enseñanza formal con el aprendizaje informal se fomenta la accesibilidad y cooperación para un aprendizaje efectivo y significativo en cualquier área del conocimiento
Global Fairness in Digital Interaction:A rhizomatic analysis of social imaginaries
Get PDFDenne afhandling behandler og sammenfatter tre sociale fænomener: sociale forestillinger (eng. “social imaginaries”), sociale bevægelser og sociale medier. Projektets formål er at besvare spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt og hvordan de sociale forestillinger om global retfærdighed er til stede i digital interaktion. Begrebet “sociale forestillinger” blev introduceret af den græsk-franske filosof Cornelius Castoriadis (1987). Sociale forestillinger refererer ikke til noget uvirkeligt eller fiktivt, som kun eksisterer i enkeltpersoners hoveder, men derimod til fælles konstruktioner, indenfor hvilke mennesker organiserer deres kollektive sociale verden. Begrebet er gennem årene blevet anvendt af forskellige forskere, herunder i den canadiske filosof Charles Taylors anerkendte værk Modern Social Imaginaries (2004). I 2009 argumenterede politolog Manfred Steger for fremkomsten af globale forestillinger, herunder udviklingen af forestillinger om alterglobalisering, som anført af sociale bevægelser bekæmper og imødegår markedsdrevet globalisering (Steger & Wilson 2012; Steger et al. 2013).Centralt i projektet står forståelsen af kommunikation som et redskab for forandring (Marí Sáez 2012; Chaparro 2015; Tufte 2015). Afhandlingen fokuserer på digital interaktion, der defineres som internetmedieret flervejskommunikation i brugen af informations- og kommunikationsteknologier (IKT). Digital interaktion regnes for at være en hybrid kommunikationsform, idet den på én gang både er individualiseret og forbundet (Castells 2013).Der findes et antal studier af nutidige organiserede sociale bevægelser (OSB), undersøgt med både online og offline forskningsmetoder (Mosca 2014). Der er imidlertid ikke forsket meget i offentlighedens digitale interaktion i regi af OSB. Med dette projekt ønsker jeg at ændre herpå, idet jeg i 18 måneder har fulgt fem europæiske sociale bevægelser og deres Ecuadorafdelinger på Facebook og Twitter.I projektet undersøger jeg både strukturen i den digitale interaktion og indholdet af den. Hvad det første angår, bygger undersøgelsen på den antagelse, at strukturen i digital interaktion er rhizomatisk. De franske filosoffer Gilles Deleuze og Felix Guattari (1987) bruger den rhizomatiske metafor som et billede på tænkning. Digital interaktion vedrører mange forskellige og spredte emner, netværk og begivenheder, som tilsyneladende ikke er forbundne, men som uafhængigt af hinanden forbindes gennem fælles koncepter. Digital interaktion giver også mulighed for, at mennesker kan kommunikere på forskellige sprog, og at kommunikationen kan foregå simultant og asynkront, hvilket ville være utænkeligt i ansigt-tilansigt-kommunikation. Hvad det andet, analysen af indholdet, søges der med udgangspunkt i grounded theory efter fælles idéer, ønsker og meninger hos deltagerne i digital interaktion.Resultaterne illustrerer, hvordan organisationernes kommunikation på sociale medier kan påvirke advokeringsformål positivt og negativt (hvilke ”affordances” sociale medier har herfor). Begrebet Advokering 2.0 anvendes igennem afhandlingen som en parallel til Web 2.0- begrebet.Afhandlingen præsenterer en cyklisk model for den digitale interaktionsproces. Processen består af fire faser: at poste, at dele, at samarbejde og at handle. Disse fire faser er stigende i krævende og dermed også aftagende i antallet af deltagere. Mens de første tre faser udelukkende finder sted i den digitale verden, refererer den sidste handle-fase både til fysiske og digitale handlinger.Analysen indikerer, at mulighederne for at udtrykke sig i de første to faser spiller en vigtig rolle i digital interaktion. Heterogene diskurser bliver ikke forenet, da nogle er utopiske, andre dystopiske, og mange er neutrale, uinteresserede eller uengagerede. Der er desuden mange diskurser i digital interaktion, og disse er tilsyneladende ikke forbundne. Markedsorienterede forestillinger, som udspringer fra det neoliberale økonomiske system, filtres sammen med forestillinger om global retfærdighed, herunder økonomi, køn og social lighed, miljøbeskyttelse og landbrugspraksis, handel og politik. Der eksisterer således sociale forestillinger om global retfærdighed i digital interaktion, og disse kan ses i samarbejdsfasen, hvor de kommer til udtryk igennem både refleksion og indblanding i diskussionen, og i handlefasen, hvor deltagerne forpligter sig gennem kollektiv handling i den fysiske verden. Digital interaktion muliggør sammenknytning af mennesker og problemstillinger, uafhængigt af tid og sted og sociale og kulturelle forskelle.Advokering 2.0 skaber mulighederne for at mennesker kan dele problemstillinger og interagere digitalt for derigennem at realisere deres håb om global retfærdighed.This study addresses and links three features of the social: social imaginaries, social movements and social media. Its aim is to answer the question of whether and how are the social imaginaries of global fairness present in digital interaction. The term ‘social imaginary’ was first coined by Greek-French philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis (1987) referring not to something unreal or fictitious existing only in the mind of an individual, but to the shared frameworks within which people organise their collective social world. This notion has been revisited throughout time by different scholars, among whom Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor’s work Modern Social Imaginaries (2004) is renowned. In 2009, political scientist Manfred Steger suggests the rise of the global imaginary and within it, the emergence of alter-globalisation imaginaries led by social movement organisations, countering market-driven globalisation (Steger & Wilson 2012; Steger et al. 2013). At the core of this project is the understanding of communication as a tool for change (Marí Sáez 2012; Chaparro 2015; Tufte 2015) sustained on digital interaction, which is defined as the multi-way communication process mediated by the internet and the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). It is considered a hybrid type of communication, both individualised and connected at once (Castells 2013). While a number of studies using both online and offline research methods (Mosca 2014) have analysed current social movement organisations (SMOs), the research is scarce on SMOenabled digital interaction in the public realm. This project aims to fill this gap following for 18 months the Facebook and Twitter accounts of five European social movement organisations and their local branches for Ecuador.The study claims that the structure of digital interaction is rhizomatic, building on the rhizome metaphor as a structure of thought proposed by French philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (1987). Digital interaction addresses multiple, diverse and scattered concerns, networks, and events, which are apparently disconnected, yet key concepts find linkages and emerge. Digital interaction also affords a multiplicity of languages to communicate simultaneously and asynchronously, which is otherwise unthinkable in face-to-face communication. However for the analysis of the contents in digital interaction for advocacy, the study takes an approach of grounded theory in search of shared ideas, desires and notions of participants that could portray social imaginaries.Findings illustrate positive and negative affordances of organisationally enabled social media for advocacy purposes, referred throughout as Advocacy 2.0, in parallel to the stages of development of the internet itself. The process followed by Advocacy 2.0 is suggested to be cyclical and composed of four stages: posting, sharing, cooperating and acting. These stages are increasingly demanding and consequently, decreasing in participants. While the first three stages happen completely in the digital world, the last stage of acting refers to both connective and collective (physical) engagement. The analysis proposes that expressivity plays an important role in digital interaction corresponding to the first two stages of this cycle. Heterogenic discourses are not unified, as some are utopian, others dystopian, and many are neutral, disinterested or dispassionate. Moreover, discourses in digital interaction are multiple and apparently disconnected. Marketoriented imaginaries stemming from the neo-liberal economic system are tangled with global fairness imaginaries sustained on economic, gender and social equality, environmental conservation and farming practices, trading and politics.Consequently, social imaginaries of global fairness are present in digital interaction and can be viewed from the stage of cooperating, suggesting both reflection and involvement in the discussion, to the stage of acting, in which participants commit to collective action in the physical world. Digital interaction enables the connection of people and issues, regardless of place, time and social and cultural differences. Advocacy 2.0 provides the means for people to share their concerns and interact digitally for realising their hope for global fairness
Global Fairness in Digital Interaction:A rhizomatic analysis of social imaginaries
Get PDFDenne afhandling behandler og sammenfatter tre sociale fænomener: sociale forestillinger (eng. “social imaginaries”), sociale bevægelser og sociale medier. Projektets formål er at besvare spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt og hvordan de sociale forestillinger om global retfærdighed er til stede i digital interaktion. Begrebet “sociale forestillinger” blev introduceret af den græsk-franske filosof Cornelius Castoriadis (1987). Sociale forestillinger refererer ikke til noget uvirkeligt eller fiktivt, som kun eksisterer i enkeltpersoners hoveder, men derimod til fælles konstruktioner, indenfor hvilke mennesker organiserer deres kollektive sociale verden. Begrebet er gennem årene blevet anvendt af forskellige forskere, herunder i den canadiske filosof Charles Taylors anerkendte værk Modern Social Imaginaries (2004). I 2009 argumenterede politolog Manfred Steger for fremkomsten af globale forestillinger, herunder udviklingen af forestillinger om alterglobalisering, som anført af sociale bevægelser bekæmper og imødegår markedsdrevet globalisering (Steger & Wilson 2012; Steger et al. 2013).Centralt i projektet står forståelsen af kommunikation som et redskab for forandring (Marí Sáez 2012; Chaparro 2015; Tufte 2015). Afhandlingen fokuserer på digital interaktion, der defineres som internetmedieret flervejskommunikation i brugen af informations- og kommunikationsteknologier (IKT). Digital interaktion regnes for at være en hybrid kommunikationsform, idet den på én gang både er individualiseret og forbundet (Castells 2013).Der findes et antal studier af nutidige organiserede sociale bevægelser (OSB), undersøgt med både online og offline forskningsmetoder (Mosca 2014). Der er imidlertid ikke forsket meget i offentlighedens digitale interaktion i regi af OSB. Med dette projekt ønsker jeg at ændre herpå, idet jeg i 18 måneder har fulgt fem europæiske sociale bevægelser og deres Ecuadorafdelinger på Facebook og Twitter.I projektet undersøger jeg både strukturen i den digitale interaktion og indholdet af den. Hvad det første angår, bygger undersøgelsen på den antagelse, at strukturen i digital interaktion er rhizomatisk. De franske filosoffer Gilles Deleuze og Felix Guattari (1987) bruger den rhizomatiske metafor som et billede på tænkning. Digital interaktion vedrører mange forskellige og spredte emner, netværk og begivenheder, som tilsyneladende ikke er forbundne, men som uafhængigt af hinanden forbindes gennem fælles koncepter. Digital interaktion giver også mulighed for, at mennesker kan kommunikere på forskellige sprog, og at kommunikationen kan foregå simultant og asynkront, hvilket ville være utænkeligt i ansigt-tilansigt-kommunikation. Hvad det andet, analysen af indholdet, søges der med udgangspunkt i grounded theory efter fælles idéer, ønsker og meninger hos deltagerne i digital interaktion.Resultaterne illustrerer, hvordan organisationernes kommunikation på sociale medier kan påvirke advokeringsformål positivt og negativt (hvilke ”affordances” sociale medier har herfor). Begrebet Advokering 2.0 anvendes igennem afhandlingen som en parallel til Web 2.0- begrebet.Afhandlingen præsenterer en cyklisk model for den digitale interaktionsproces. Processen består af fire faser: at poste, at dele, at samarbejde og at handle. Disse fire faser er stigende i krævende og dermed også aftagende i antallet af deltagere. Mens de første tre faser udelukkende finder sted i den digitale verden, refererer den sidste handle-fase både til fysiske og digitale handlinger.Analysen indikerer, at mulighederne for at udtrykke sig i de første to faser spiller en vigtig rolle i digital interaktion. Heterogene diskurser bliver ikke forenet, da nogle er utopiske, andre dystopiske, og mange er neutrale, uinteresserede eller uengagerede. Der er desuden mange diskurser i digital interaktion, og disse er tilsyneladende ikke forbundne. Markedsorienterede forestillinger, som udspringer fra det neoliberale økonomiske system, filtres sammen med forestillinger om global retfærdighed, herunder økonomi, køn og social lighed, miljøbeskyttelse og landbrugspraksis, handel og politik. Der eksisterer således sociale forestillinger om global retfærdighed i digital interaktion, og disse kan ses i samarbejdsfasen, hvor de kommer til udtryk igennem både refleksion og indblanding i diskussionen, og i handlefasen, hvor deltagerne forpligter sig gennem kollektiv handling i den fysiske verden. Digital interaktion muliggør sammenknytning af mennesker og problemstillinger, uafhængigt af tid og sted og sociale og kulturelle forskelle.Advokering 2.0 skaber mulighederne for at mennesker kan dele problemstillinger og interagere digitalt for derigennem at realisere deres håb om global retfærdighed.This study addresses and links three features of the social: social imaginaries, social movements and social media. Its aim is to answer the question of whether and how are the social imaginaries of global fairness present in digital interaction. The term ‘social imaginary’ was first coined by Greek-French philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis (1987) referring not to something unreal or fictitious existing only in the mind of an individual, but to the shared frameworks within which people organise their collective social world. This notion has been revisited throughout time by different scholars, among whom Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor’s work Modern Social Imaginaries (2004) is renowned. In 2009, political scientist Manfred Steger suggests the rise of the global imaginary and within it, the emergence of alter-globalisation imaginaries led by social movement organisations, countering market-driven globalisation (Steger & Wilson 2012; Steger et al. 2013). At the core of this project is the understanding of communication as a tool for change (Marí Sáez 2012; Chaparro 2015; Tufte 2015) sustained on digital interaction, which is defined as the multi-way communication process mediated by the internet and the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). It is considered a hybrid type of communication, both individualised and connected at once (Castells 2013). While a number of studies using both online and offline research methods (Mosca 2014) have analysed current social movement organisations (SMOs), the research is scarce on SMOenabled digital interaction in the public realm. This project aims to fill this gap following for 18 months the Facebook and Twitter accounts of five European social movement organisations and their local branches for Ecuador.The study claims that the structure of digital interaction is rhizomatic, building on the rhizome metaphor as a structure of thought proposed by French philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (1987). Digital interaction addresses multiple, diverse and scattered concerns, networks, and events, which are apparently disconnected, yet key concepts find linkages and emerge. Digital interaction also affords a multiplicity of languages to communicate simultaneously and asynchronously, which is otherwise unthinkable in face-to-face communication. However for the analysis of the contents in digital interaction for advocacy, the study takes an approach of grounded theory in search of shared ideas, desires and notions of participants that could portray social imaginaries.Findings illustrate positive and negative affordances of organisationally enabled social media for advocacy purposes, referred throughout as Advocacy 2.0, in parallel to the stages of development of the internet itself. The process followed by Advocacy 2.0 is suggested to be cyclical and composed of four stages: posting, sharing, cooperating and acting. These stages are increasingly demanding and consequently, decreasing in participants. While the first three stages happen completely in the digital world, the last stage of acting refers to both connective and collective (physical) engagement. The analysis proposes that expressivity plays an important role in digital interaction corresponding to the first two stages of this cycle. Heterogenic discourses are not unified, as some are utopian, others dystopian, and many are neutral, disinterested or dispassionate. Moreover, discourses in digital interaction are multiple and apparently disconnected. Marketoriented imaginaries stemming from the neo-liberal economic system are tangled with global fairness imaginaries sustained on economic, gender and social equality, environmental conservation and farming practices, trading and politics.Consequently, social imaginaries of global fairness are present in digital interaction and can be viewed from the stage of cooperating, suggesting both reflection and involvement in the discussion, to the stage of acting, in which participants commit to collective action in the physical world. Digital interaction enables the connection of people and issues, regardless of place, time and social and cultural differences. Advocacy 2.0 provides the means for people to share their concerns and interact digitally for realising their hope for global fairness
Connective Action for Global Fairness: Building Social Imaginaries
Get PDFSocial imaginaries are frameworks within which people organise their collective world; where imagination, not simply reason, plays a part in the construction of social practices. Through a grounded theory approach, this article asks whether and how social imaginaries of global fairness are present in connective action, a type of digital interaction for advocacy. From January 2014 to June 2015, the study followed the Facebook accounts of five advocacy organisations: Hivos, Oxfam IBIS, Intermon-Oxfam, SSNC and Vredeseilanden. Connective action, more than just accomplishing an expressing function of posting and sharing – which could be considered as ‘slacktivism’– denotes cooperating and acting by means of dialogic learning involving reflection and action. The research suggests that current social imaginaries may be built in connective action involving topics of nature conservation, equality, eco-farming, among others. Thus, the field of connective action remains open to theorizing how these imaginaries could constitute a strong foundation upon which communication for social change (CFSC) strategies may be grounded
Global Fairness in Digital Interaction:A rhizomatic analysis of social imaginaries
Get PDFDenne afhandling behandler og sammenfatter tre sociale fænomener: sociale forestillinger (eng. “social imaginaries”), sociale bevægelser og sociale medier. Projektets formål er at besvare spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt og hvordan de sociale forestillinger om global retfærdighed er til stede i digital interaktion. Begrebet “sociale forestillinger” blev introduceret af den græsk-franske filosof Cornelius Castoriadis (1987). Sociale forestillinger refererer ikke til noget uvirkeligt eller fiktivt, som kun eksisterer i enkeltpersoners hoveder, men derimod til fælles konstruktioner, indenfor hvilke mennesker organiserer deres kollektive sociale verden. Begrebet er gennem årene blevet anvendt af forskellige forskere, herunder i den canadiske filosof Charles Taylors anerkendte værk Modern Social Imaginaries (2004). I 2009 argumenterede politolog Manfred Steger for fremkomsten af globale forestillinger, herunder udviklingen af forestillinger om alterglobalisering, som anført af sociale bevægelser bekæmper og imødegår markedsdrevet globalisering (Steger & Wilson 2012; Steger et al. 2013).Centralt i projektet står forståelsen af kommunikation som et redskab for forandring (Marí Sáez 2012; Chaparro 2015; Tufte 2015). Afhandlingen fokuserer på digital interaktion, der defineres som internetmedieret flervejskommunikation i brugen af informations- og kommunikationsteknologier (IKT). Digital interaktion regnes for at være en hybrid kommunikationsform, idet den på én gang både er individualiseret og forbundet (Castells 2013).Der findes et antal studier af nutidige organiserede sociale bevægelser (OSB), undersøgt med både online og offline forskningsmetoder (Mosca 2014). Der er imidlertid ikke forsket meget i offentlighedens digitale interaktion i regi af OSB. Med dette projekt ønsker jeg at ændre herpå, idet jeg i 18 måneder har fulgt fem europæiske sociale bevægelser og deres Ecuadorafdelinger på Facebook og Twitter.I projektet undersøger jeg både strukturen i den digitale interaktion og indholdet af den. Hvad det første angår, bygger undersøgelsen på den antagelse, at strukturen i digital interaktion er rhizomatisk. De franske filosoffer Gilles Deleuze og Felix Guattari (1987) bruger den rhizomatiske metafor som et billede på tænkning. Digital interaktion vedrører mange forskellige og spredte emner, netværk og begivenheder, som tilsyneladende ikke er forbundne, men som uafhængigt af hinanden forbindes gennem fælles koncepter. Digital interaktion giver også mulighed for, at mennesker kan kommunikere på forskellige sprog, og at kommunikationen kan foregå simultant og asynkront, hvilket ville være utænkeligt i ansigt-tilansigt-kommunikation. Hvad det andet, analysen af indholdet, søges der med udgangspunkt i grounded theory efter fælles idéer, ønsker og meninger hos deltagerne i digital interaktion.Resultaterne illustrerer, hvordan organisationernes kommunikation på sociale medier kan påvirke advokeringsformål positivt og negativt (hvilke ”affordances” sociale medier har herfor). Begrebet Advokering 2.0 anvendes igennem afhandlingen som en parallel til Web 2.0- begrebet.Afhandlingen præsenterer en cyklisk model for den digitale interaktionsproces. Processen består af fire faser: at poste, at dele, at samarbejde og at handle. Disse fire faser er stigende i krævende og dermed også aftagende i antallet af deltagere. Mens de første tre faser udelukkende finder sted i den digitale verden, refererer den sidste handle-fase både til fysiske og digitale handlinger.Analysen indikerer, at mulighederne for at udtrykke sig i de første to faser spiller en vigtig rolle i digital interaktion. Heterogene diskurser bliver ikke forenet, da nogle er utopiske, andre dystopiske, og mange er neutrale, uinteresserede eller uengagerede. Der er desuden mange diskurser i digital interaktion, og disse er tilsyneladende ikke forbundne. Markedsorienterede forestillinger, som udspringer fra det neoliberale økonomiske system, filtres sammen med forestillinger om global retfærdighed, herunder økonomi, køn og social lighed, miljøbeskyttelse og landbrugspraksis, handel og politik. Der eksisterer således sociale forestillinger om global retfærdighed i digital interaktion, og disse kan ses i samarbejdsfasen, hvor de kommer til udtryk igennem både refleksion og indblanding i diskussionen, og i handlefasen, hvor deltagerne forpligter sig gennem kollektiv handling i den fysiske verden. Digital interaktion muliggør sammenknytning af mennesker og problemstillinger, uafhængigt af tid og sted og sociale og kulturelle forskelle.Advokering 2.0 skaber mulighederne for at mennesker kan dele problemstillinger og interagere digitalt for derigennem at realisere deres håb om global retfærdighed.This study addresses and links three features of the social: social imaginaries, social movements and social media. Its aim is to answer the question of whether and how are the social imaginaries of global fairness present in digital interaction. The term ‘social imaginary’ was first coined by Greek-French philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis (1987) referring not to something unreal or fictitious existing only in the mind of an individual, but to the shared frameworks within which people organise their collective social world. This notion has been revisited throughout time by different scholars, among whom Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor’s work Modern Social Imaginaries (2004) is renowned. In 2009, political scientist Manfred Steger suggests the rise of the global imaginary and within it, the emergence of alter-globalisation imaginaries led by social movement organisations, countering market-driven globalisation (Steger & Wilson 2012; Steger et al. 2013). At the core of this project is the understanding of communication as a tool for change (Marí Sáez 2012; Chaparro 2015; Tufte 2015) sustained on digital interaction, which is defined as the multi-way communication process mediated by the internet and the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). It is considered a hybrid type of communication, both individualised and connected at once (Castells 2013). While a number of studies using both online and offline research methods (Mosca 2014) have analysed current social movement organisations (SMOs), the research is scarce on SMOenabled digital interaction in the public realm. This project aims to fill this gap following for 18 months the Facebook and Twitter accounts of five European social movement organisations and their local branches for Ecuador.The study claims that the structure of digital interaction is rhizomatic, building on the rhizome metaphor as a structure of thought proposed by French philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (1987). Digital interaction addresses multiple, diverse and scattered concerns, networks, and events, which are apparently disconnected, yet key concepts find linkages and emerge. Digital interaction also affords a multiplicity of languages to communicate simultaneously and asynchronously, which is otherwise unthinkable in face-to-face communication. However for the analysis of the contents in digital interaction for advocacy, the study takes an approach of grounded theory in search of shared ideas, desires and notions of participants that could portray social imaginaries.Findings illustrate positive and negative affordances of organisationally enabled social media for advocacy purposes, referred throughout as Advocacy 2.0, in parallel to the stages of development of the internet itself. The process followed by Advocacy 2.0 is suggested to be cyclical and composed of four stages: posting, sharing, cooperating and acting. These stages are increasingly demanding and consequently, decreasing in participants. While the first three stages happen completely in the digital world, the last stage of acting refers to both connective and collective (physical) engagement. The analysis proposes that expressivity plays an important role in digital interaction corresponding to the first two stages of this cycle. Heterogenic discourses are not unified, as some are utopian, others dystopian, and many are neutral, disinterested or dispassionate. Moreover, discourses in digital interaction are multiple and apparently disconnected. Marketoriented imaginaries stemming from the neo-liberal economic system are tangled with global fairness imaginaries sustained on economic, gender and social equality, environmental conservation and farming practices, trading and politics.Consequently, social imaginaries of global fairness are present in digital interaction and can be viewed from the stage of cooperating, suggesting both reflection and involvement in the discussion, to the stage of acting, in which participants commit to collective action in the physical world. Digital interaction enables the connection of people and issues, regardless of place, time and social and cultural differences. Advocacy 2.0 provides the means for people to share their concerns and interact digitally for realising their hope for global fairness
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
