ChapterPDF Available

Abstract

The present article problematizes the scientific structure of the relatively recent sub-field scientifically coined as “media management”. Concretely, the manuscript is displayed around the critical reflection of what I conceptualize as F.A.T.I., that is, four structural interrelated dimensions that configure the “spiritus” of its form: (1) Field, (2) Autonomy, (3) technepractical domination and (4) Identity. The F.A.T.I, which is normally portrayed as template for good scholarship, is configured in this essay as a comfort academic zone in which a series of dispositions, practices and socialized habitus by the media management consortia obstruct and jeopardize alternative intellectual dispositions and modus of scientific discovery and verification. I propose the concept of transcendence-breaking as strategy of individual and disciplinarian emancipation of the structural ideological statu quo. I suggest three versions: theoretical-breaking, functional-breaking and, more ambitiously, epistemological-breaking.
A preview of the PDF is not available
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
El presente artículo analiza críticamente el sistema productivo y evaluativo de la academia en materia de ciencias sociales en general, y ciencias de la comunicación en particular. Partiendo de una específica interpretación de su estructura (la " práctica cultural académica moderna "), propone una tipología de investigadores contemporáneos así como deconstruye el discurso investigador estandarizado como razonamiento de validez único y absoluto. Palabras clave: Estandarización, ciencias sociales, ciencias de la comunicación, ANECA, índice de impacto. Abstract The present article critically analyses the productive and evaluative system of the academia in the field of social sciences in general, and communication sciences in particular. Departing from a specific interpretation of its structure (the " modern cultural academic practice "), it proposes a typology of contemporary researchers as well as deconstructs the standardized discourse research as a mechanism of universal validity.