Science topic

Discourse - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Discourse, and find Discourse experts.
Questions related to Discourse
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
4 answers
Can I use for example poststructuralist discourse theory in the theoretical framework but then use an other methodology for the analysis (I don't know lets say framing or literature review). Or do I have to use discourse analysis as method as well? Is coding necessary for all discourse analysis? Thank you
Relevant answer
Answer
you can do so by adopting an eclectic model of analysis.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
1 answer
Will it be possible to extract correct sentiment in sentences using discourse structure? How to improve sentiment classification using discourse approach?
Relevant answer
Answer
Sentiment, analogous to emotion, depends upon many factors of communication. Because of its pervasive influence, we cannot depend solely upon any single element of language to correctly extract sentiment or emotion. That being said, the information structure of a text often reveals much of the sentiment within it. The content placed in emphatic positions often embodies core aspects of the statement's sentiment.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
2 answers
do scientific translators in English find jobs in Algeria?
Relevant answer
Answer
Scientific and technical translators are needed every where, because of the importance of their area of specialization. Job opportunities will always be there.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
3 answers
In text and linguistics, how coherence can be utilised fully? What are the advantages of coherence?
Relevant answer
Answer
I would suggest that the main benefit of coherence in discourse, whether written or spoken, is that it allows an interlocutor to fulfill Grace's Maxims and to ensure that all parties understand. On the other hand, exactly how coherence is expressed is language-specific. You might consider looking into discourse particles, though they have gone by a variety of different names during the last few decades.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
3 answers
In discourse structure, how graph structure is better than tree. In what way we can create them to use in sentiment analysis. What are the advantages/disavntages of graph and tree. Any suggestions
Relevant answer
I wouldn't say that one is better than the other. It all depends on the way you conduct your analysis and discussions in your work. This choice is part of your methodological cut, so it must be integrated to the other parts of your work. I would say that the interpretation provided to the data are even more important than the representation itself, be it a graph, be it a tree. We can continue our conversation, but I hope my main point here be clear.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
4 answers
In the field of climate change management, to what extent do you think scientific and research approaches are influenced by the dominant discourses in this field (such as the priority of mitigation strategies over adaptation, the importance of technical measures, etc.)? Is this a limitation?
Relevant answer
Answer
Action regarding global warming must indeed take all perspectives into account. Benjamin Franklin's comment at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence is most relevant: "We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately".
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
9 answers
I need publications (books or articles) related to my questions. Specialized Language is a new trend in linguistics. It focus is Terminology, indeed. I would suggest a theoretical frame of specialized language discourse that would open the gate to specialized language discourse analysis. Yet, I have not got any previously published work in the field. this would support the originality of my research.
Relevant answer
Answer
If you read Russian: Суперанская А.В., Подольская Н.В., Васильева Н.В. Общая терминология: Вопросы теории. (Superanskaya A.V., Podolskaya N.V., Vasilyeva N.V. General Terminology: Theoretical Issues. Six stereotypical editions, from 1989 to 2018) The same authors are well-known specialists in onomastics.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
3 answers
I'm learning the anti-feminist motives in the MP's for the 1-year time span. In this regard, I will analyze all the transcripts (for the sake of the validity of the data) of the speeches and will focus on the anti-feminist discourses. Still, I have suspicions in terms of the validity and reliability issues.
Relevant answer
Answer
I think it is reliable. To what extent the results of a discourse analysis then really meet the criteria of reliability and validity is difficult. From my point of view, they do not have to meet these criteria, because a discourse analysis wants something else. It shows power structures, repetitions, legitimations in processes.
There are no standardised quality criteria for qualitative research. However, three quality criteria seem to make sense: transparency, intersubjectivity and range.
Your discourse analysis should be transparent, which means that you document the work steps and present them in a comprehensible way. In a further step, you could reflect on and discuss the subjectively obtained data, thus fulfilling the criterion of intersubjectivity. The presentation of the limitations and scope of your discourse analysis would also be important.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
5 answers
We're looking for feminist discourse related studies that pragmatically or stylistically approach feminist discourse in the writings of Virginia Wolf Novels.
Relevant answer
Answer
[19/01, 12:10 am] Hanan Ebaid: Christine Christie
Gender and Language: Towards a Feminist Pragmatics
1st Edition
ISBN-13: 978-0748609352, ISBN-10: 0748609350
[19/01, 12:14 am] Hanan Ebaid: Stylistics, Feminist
December 2006
DOI: 10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00552-6
In book: Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics
S. Mills
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
3 answers
The concepts of mentalizing and socio-emotional learning (SEL) seem to be close at first glance. I am not aware of any paper that brings both concepts together in a theoretical discourse. How do these concepts differ fundamentally?
Relevant answer
Translation to English: "A psychological cognitive activity called the movement of information in the brain upon receiving an stimulus to search for meaning in a situation or experience. Socio-emotional learning is an activity aimed at acquiring socio-emotional information for the purpose of performing correct emotional behavior during social interaction" from Dr Abbas Noah Almosawi's answer
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
5 answers
How is Post-Truth Discourse Related to Environmentalism?
In what ways does Post-Truth affect environmentalism and environmental conservation?
I'm looking for specific answers / cases.
Relevant answer
Answer
Post-truth means that anybody can make any kind of claim and the original claim goes farther and faster than the rebuttal or fact check does.
Therefore, conspiracy theories and false claims are often seen by more people than the truth. This can greatly affect what people believe about environmental issues, such as climate change.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
4 answers
This is a work in progress attempt to crystallise the 3 main ontologies, schools, mindsets and underlying theology, metaphysics if you will, among the "3 Wise Men" (Goodman - UK, Reimann - German, and Jacobson - US) from CoCo. Each of CoCo's founding fathers' learning technologies reflect their nationalities, and by extension, their national universities' concerns and agendas for the learner.
By tracing the underlying "self" of their respective technological formulations, one could delineate their contrasting (sometimes overlapping, ontologies, schools) mindsets and govern-mentalities embedded in their respective learning technologies.
In Goodman's works, there's a preoccupation with space and architecture, notably the need to recolonise monotonous routine driven places. There's a strong streak of Marxist geography found in the works of David Harvey that focuses on redistributing justice and power via spatial arrangements such as design driven planning and regeneration. Through the spatial (re-)arrangement of the learning environment, (To be continued!).
Relevant answer
Answer
Secondly, here are the projects I am engaged in, though ultimately, to go even beyond Heidegger's mindset, I think the most fruitful way forward is to renounce the WESTERN METAPHYSICS of MIND BODY CARTESIAN FRAME, and venture into CHINESE METAPHYSICS.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
1 answer
Is it possible to create Knowledge Graph without creating ontology (conceptualization domain of discourse) ?
Relevant answer
Answer
If a KG was not built based on a previous modeled formal ontology, entity types, entity properties and entity relations can be defined based on an implicit schema.
As new data is added, types, properties and relations can be discovered and added to the schema, in a schemaless (or schema later) approach.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
6 answers
By analyzing discourse, we consider both texts and contexts but we also take reality into consideration. Reality functions as a reference point and a product at the same time, interesting. In this sense, is discourse analysis 2 or 3 dimensional or more? If it has dimensions, what are they? Text, Context, (& Reality)?
Relevant answer
Answer
The question really would be “how to define reality”. Dimensions would have to be quantifiable and measurable otherwise it is hard to back up any kind of argument.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
3 answers
There are many cognitive methods and AI tools that a discourse analyzer can apply for the analysis of qualitative or quantitative data.
The process is the simulation of NLP, which is being operated by an intelligent researcher.
We developed especially a platform devoted to this process that presents variant-based solutions for developing researchers' hypotheses.
...............................
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you Prof. Alotumi and Prof.Guylan.
That was very fruitful recommendations.
I shall be glad to have any new recommendations from you and others.
Best.
Nazaralian,Y
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
5 answers
We want to write a paper that compares the public discourse on a specific topic in different countries. More specifically, we are interested in identifying argument in favour of a specific policy. We find it challenging to balance the depth a "regular" Discourse Analysis requires with the danger of "data overload" when comparing material from several countries.
Is there a good set of easily accessible data that you would turn to for such a task? Parliamentary debates? Editorial and opinion pieces in the main newspapers? Others? Seen a paper that actually does a similar comparison? Thank you so much!
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Patrick, Fatemeh, Badriyah and Suyash,
Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. They will all feed into the final methodology of the research project we are working on.
Thanks again,
Henner
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
15 answers
Up on your understanding of dicsourse structure, I would like to share your ideas about the minimal structure of a discourse. Discourse analyists suggest and recommend that for discourse analysis the structure of discourse should not be less than two sentences. However, in the discourse of everyday communication sometimes we encounter the use of sign language or facial expressions and body movements. More particularly, in some places and institutions such as post offices or airports we usually find posters and wall signs telling us not to smoke or lead us to mens' and womens' toilets. The question here is that can we consider these signs and posters to be discourse or not. Thanking you for exhanging your views and comments.
Relevant answer
Answer
I agree with your argument that a text of (a sign) is not enough to be considered as a discourse in terms of its textual structure. However, coherence in discourse is much more essential for the texturness of a text to be a discourse. Therefore, any sign has a kind of mutual comperhension (contextual interaction) between the reader and the writer (the one who has a message behind making such sign).
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
3 answers
When preparing a project I clicked on project interest, which now fills up my entire project (CDA, discourse theory and hegemony) with publications of someone else on peace education. I want to remove that, but I cannot see how to do this.
Thanks!
Relevant answer
Answer
I have faced the same problem... trying to remove it.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
1 answer
I request interviews with professors and researchers on the following components
Reflective thinking
Border discourse
Mindfulness
mushfake
Help me thank you
Relevant answer
Answer
Reflective thinking - Excellent psychometric option - https://courses.lumenlearning.com/olemiss-writing100/chapter/what-is-reflection/
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
9 answers
In general discourse, waste to energy as a means of waste management scores poorly in policy discourse in governments. But, the real cost of waste is actually way more than the cost incurred in developing and sustaining Waste to energy plants. It is because the indirect cost attached to health and environment has never been included in the overall cost calculation of cost impact. It is there fore never given a priority in policy discourse and in funding. What is the best way to include these costs so that waste to energy can draw the urgent attention of the national and sub national government in respect of SDG 2030?
Relevant answer
Answer
Waste hitherto have been disposed carelessly. Having realized the implications on environment, many have been trying to get the best out of waste so much so that Waste is no more a waste BUT, a resource. Since this has been put to constructive use, the zero value has been adding unmeasurable value to a better environment overall.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
4 answers
Soft set was introduced soft set in 1999 as a model to capture uncertainties. Recently, Smarandache introduced a notion which he calls hyper soft set. In soft set theory a soft is associated with a function which assigns a subset of the universe of discourse to each parameter.
In case of hyper soft sets, also we have a function which associates every parametric value tuple with a subset of the universe of discourse.
As claimed by Smarandache, his notion generalises an earlier notion of Gamma soft sets. That is when number of parameters is 2 we gat Gamma soft sets.
But, as dealt by the authors of Gama soft set, the second component is a fixed set of parameters. This does not seem to be the case of hyper soft sets.
So, my query is why the notion of Smarandache be called as hyper soft set. It would have been termed so if we are getting soft set when the number of parameters is reduced to 1.
I would like to get inputs from researchers in soft set theory as well as hyper soft set theory.
Relevant answer
Answer
Yes we can Soft set is the special case of Hypersoft Set.
The definition of Hypersoft Set is mapping say F,
F: A_1×A_2×A_3....×A_n to P(U)
Here each A_i is further classified.
Where's in case of Soft Set A_i are not further categorize.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
6 answers
During the second wave of COVID-19, the methodologies of teaching and assessment adopted during the first wave were put under deeper scrutiny to avoid the mistakes done earlier. How did it impact the discourse in in Education and more particularly wrt Assessment?
Relevant answer
Answer
Assessing students remotely became very challenging.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
11 answers
The memories of the events, biographical or not, are reconstructed in the memory narratives. In this way, the recollection, or at least, the recollection narrative is influenced by the context (past and present). But, how does the context influence the registration of the biographical event and the narrative of remembrance? How can Context Theory help us to understand the influence of time on narratives?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hope this helps... Its a good paper by Parker et al. 2007.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
4 answers
I am looking for texts on Reference(ing) and/or Referential Processes in Discourse, construction of referents. Works that explore these topics in oral narratives (fiction or real). Thanks.
Relevant answer
Answer
Please check some of the works done by Prof. Ganesh Devy
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
4 answers
Hello,
I want to analyse a populist party manifestos and I`m not sure how to approach them. I was thinking about finding populist keywords, counting them and show that they indicate a type of discourse, but I am not sure.
Any adivce?
Thank you,
Andreea T.
Relevant answer
Answer
You could have a look at the theoretical framework proposed by Hart (2008) which blends critical discourse analysis (CDA) and metaphor. In his article, Hart (2008) demonstrated his framework by applying the CDA of metaphors on a selected British National Party’s manifesto.
Hart, C. (2008). Critical discourse analysis and metaphor: Toward a theoretical framework. Critical Discourse Studies, 5(2), 91-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900801990058
Good luck,
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
7 answers
Hello everyone! I would like to ask if someone knows how to scrape/ extract all the discourses, engagements, interactions of members in a FB Group, for the last 10 years, for example. I am currently conducting a digital ethnography research,, focusing on an online community of practice. Thank you very much for sharing your experience on a similar research endeavor.
Relevant answer
Answer
Robert Borges its good Lib, but its not working when we deal with private groups. i think there is a bug when we want to login
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
6 answers
Especially from different countries and cultures..
Relevant answer
Answer
From my point of view, sexism is appreciated daily. In my case, I am aware of and witness to behaviors of this type when, for example, I find myself alone as a woman in front of a group of men, that's when I express phrases like: '' make us something to eat '', '' clean this up '' ', etc. Even at the wheel when a woman is driving, we see and hear unequal treatment by gender. Although the greatest examples are seen in the different domestic tasks spread around the home, in the media and in workplaces, when women are emphasized and given to understand that they always have to be beautiful and attractive to '' attract '' the public in some way or another.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
3 answers
Narrative is an important subject for the contemporary investigative, educational and creative processes. Its significance derives from the fact that discourse tends to codification, specialization and institutionalization, whereas narrative operates at the margins of discourse, benefiting from diverse, flexible, interdisciplinary knowledge spaces, making discourse problematic and opening it up to the dialogic.
Narrative is a way of thinking and a reading-writing research procedure that reinforces memorization of the past and articulates the present; that addresses itself to a diverse
culture, its know-how, practices and territories; that reconfigures the communicative ecosystem. Narratives are tales that may be written, visual, audiovisual, sounding, performative, and are approached in a panoramic, expanded, hybrid or interactive way, displaying their content through multiple writings and communication platforms where the narrated actors and the spectators taken on participative roles.
As Editor-in-Chief of ACTIO Journal of Technology in Design, Film Arts and Visual Communication, we invite you to submit an article related to narratives. For more information, see the attached document. Thanks for sharing!
Relevant answer
Answer
The link by Sotiris Folinas may be of help
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
3 answers
Since 2016 coup attempt CHP has accepted the official narrative of AKP government and its discourse (of rhetoric). I am investigating the reasons of this compliance.
Relevant answer
Answer
Perhaps Koray Caliskan can help you. He is on Research Gate.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
3 answers
Language teachers at UTP (Language Department) are increasingly interested in the role of academic papers in the development of language (English) teaching practices. Research papers in Academic Discourse are attracting the attention on many language teachers interested in fostering their teaching experiences.
Relevant answer
Answer
Critical Discourse Analysis in Education and ESL Classroom
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
3 answers
The interconnected inquiries help me to approach literary Iraqi identity poetics as an integral part of a parallel discourse that is working to unsettle the dominant official 2003 poetry of “Iraqiness” as well as the sectarian essentializations of post-2003 Iraqi society.
Relevant answer
Answer
As time shows religion has made a comeback in the Middle East. But as far as time is concerned, religion has never been a factor in our poetry. They being more secular. It remains to be seen whether because of politics, poetry too will be effected by the change.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
77 answers
In fact, I need to know the analytical tools related to discourse analysis that might be used to tackle a literary discourse (precisely poems). I also need the names of the prominent linguists who pioneered the concepts in discourse analysis that are suitable to analyze a literary discourse.
Thank you in advance.
Rafik
Relevant answer
Answer
PROJECT
A NEW BOOK ON CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR THEORY BY ZOLTÁN KÖVECSES
Here is a brief description of the book:
The phenomenon known as metaphor is an extremely complex mental event - we cannot capture its complexity if we tie ourselves to existing standard views on metaphor. This book offers fresh insight into metaphor, updating an established theory, conceptual metaphor theory (CMT), in the context of current cognitive linguistic theory, and clarifying many of the issues that researchers in the study of metaphor have raised against conceptual metaphor theory. Starting with an introduction to CMT, the subsequent chapters set out propositions for Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, including a discussion on whether literal language exists at all, whether conceptual metaphors are both conceptual and contextual, and whether they are both offline and online. Providing a fresh take on a constantly developing field, this study will enrich the work of researchers in areas ranging from metaphorical cognition to literary studies.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
3 answers
I need good recommendations for papers/articles on the translation problems of war-related texts/discourse. Thank you!
Relevant answer
Answer
I wonder if you’ve come across (Translating War Literature and Memory in France and Britain from the 1940s to the 1960s), 2019 by Angela Kershaw. I think it an excellent study which will also help you locate other valuable references.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
6 answers
Is vague set is more applicable then fuzzy set?
Relevant answer
Answer
It has been established that vague sets are intuitionistic fuzzy sets in an article:
H.Bustince and P.Burillo: Vague sets are intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy sets and systems, 79(3), (1996), pp. 403-405.
This article provides the answer.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
7 answers
I need recommendations for a course-book for teaching Manipulative Discourse and CDA to BA level students of Translation.
Relevant answer
Answer
I would go for one of the books below:
1. Critical Discourse Analysis (2020) by Michael Farrelly (Sage)
2. The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: an Introduction (2013) by Meriel Bloor and Thomas Bloor (Routledge)
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
4 answers
Crismore et al. (1993) define metadiscourse as: "linguistic material in texts, written or spoken, which does not add anything to the propositional content but that is intended to help the listener or reader organize, interpret and evaluate the information."
Relevant answer
The spoken text expresses discourse and usage more than the written text, which can describe the discourse, not its pragmatic analysis, while all the discursive formats are clear from the written because it represents a continuous documented system
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
13 answers
In most examples of discourse analysis, the focus has been on big knowledge structures (discourses) and not on smaller discursive elements (memes). Yet, it seems that you need to analyze the evolution of discursive elements and memes to see, how discourses evolve over time and how discourses inherit ideas from each other.
Do you have any examples of such methodological combination of discourse analysis and memetics? Such methodological tools would be very useful in my analysis of the different discourses that lead some Finnish organizations to prohibit face mask usage from their employees (see attached diagram).
Relevant answer
Answer
Discourse and text: linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis .
Dear Read it would be helpful.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
22 answers
In todays world we see an increasing level of aversion towards science and scientists in general. Polititians often create narratives that goes against the consensus of the reaearch community, and science and scientists are often seen as the enemy of the people. The current state of American politics is a prime example of this. Why do you think this is, is there any future for science in the public discourse or is science becomming less and less relevant in the eyes of the general public? If so, what can or even should be done about it?
Best wishes Henrik
Relevant answer
Answer
There is apparent divarication between development of science and development of society as longtime freewheeling of royal substantiation and perfection of temporal orthodoxy. we have to admit nowaday development of science indulged too much in royal substantiation & perfection of temporal orthodoxy, but almost out of normal way to push artificial ideology abut authenticity of nature forward to perfect ideological enantiomorph of ultimate authenticity of nature. For you see, nowaday authoritative intrepidity of temporal orthodoxy is all-time, social economics has to pay them all the necessity, whereas, how much living development of science can proportionably pay back to social economics? such as the Big Bang, Black Hole Theory, Dark matter theory, gravitational wave discovery, and so on. They are hoax and hoax under egotistic guide of temporal science aristocrat who are mostly the second-string geniuses of the age!!
All in all, what you said will be even worse if development of science indulges in royal substantiation and perfection of temporal under dress of temporal science aristocrat who are mostly the second-string geniuses of the age.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
2 answers
are there any research papers/articles/etc that examines the differences of what various media says about a particular topic.. and compares it to local/public opinion, which may differ from what is being said in the media?
For example:
News: People in X city support Oranges
People in X City: Most of us actually support Apples
Relevant answer
Answer
thanks a lot Florian!
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
4 answers
Hi
I wanted to work on a comparison between the traditional class discourse interaction analysis and the new discourse version interaction system caused by the virus, and I also wanted to work on the part of the professors' opinions about the differences between these two discourse structures but I need some guidance to know poststructuralism or constructivism and in methodological frameworks, multimodal critical discourse analysis is the right one?. I have also doubted in the comparison that I should have one theory or draw results on two theories.
In advance thank you so much
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi dear friends,
Thank you very much for sharing the great information with me.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
7 answers
I am currently planning a research project/Masters dissertation about women perpetrators of the Holocaust, and I am intrested in doing some primary research. I would like to access photographs of SS women and nurses in particular. I would like to explore these frontline perpetrators' dual role as 'ordinary' German women and merciless killers.
Relevant answer
Answer
There are nowadays digital sources in most of the European archives, including for the II World War. For Germany consult https://www.bundesarchiv.de/EN/ Navigation/ Use/Using-specific-types/Military-Records/military-records-en.html
For The Netherlands, you can access The Netherlands Institute for War Documentation at http://www.niod.nl/
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
4 answers
I am a PhD student at the Free University of Amsterdam. My provisional research topic is "An Analysis of Bokyi Discourse Narrative and its Implications for translating the story of the call of Abraham in Genesis 12.
I want to find out how an understanding of Bokyi (my language) narratives can help in translating the story of the call of Abraham in a way that would be natural, clear, accurate, and acceptable to Bokyi people.
Relevant answer
Answer
I suggest you start with a theoretical framework to analyze the narrative construction of the texts you choose to examine. Think of Robert E. Longacre’s Text Generation and Text Analysis or his taxonomy regarding plot structure. Once you decide on a theoretical framework, you can then adapt it to examine patriarchal narratives or any other type. By the way, Longacre studies biblical discourses extensively and published papers as well as a book on the Joseph narrative.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
9 answers
Hello fellows,
I am focusing on newspaper discourse in terms of use of modal auxiliaries. I want to know which CDA approach will be best for the analysis of modal auxiliaries.
Thank you
Relevant answer
Answer
I suggest Text World Theory and/or Menatl Space Theory. However, modality itself due to its categories and subcategories makes a very good theoretical framework for the analysis of any discourse.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
1 answer
I am doing analysis of newspaper using DHA looking at representation of women in classical media. Can anyone help to understand how to do the analysis starting from referential strategies, predication strategies and argumentative strategies?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear, Nursyakirah Nordin , Jean-Claude Abric, there is a study on social practices and representations that may be useful. La Théorie des Représentations Sociales: orientations conceptuelles, champs d'applications et méthodes
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
6 answers
Let’s imagine that at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic we locked all leading scientists of the world from a particular field in one room for a few months to make sure they are safe. Since they have a lot of common interests and many of them already know each other, they started discussing their research and the state of the field, which resulted in an intensive exchange of knowledge, explication of commonly shared assumptions and long discussions about the most controversial topics. By the end of the quarantine they wrote one textbook for their students where only the most important knowledge of the field is aggregated and structured with axioms one has to accept to be able to work in the field and open questions formulated with all possible answers listed after each of them. Of course, this textbook should be constantly updated, like Wikipedia of this discipline, so the scientists decided to publish it online as a website. Moreover, every chapter of this book ends with a list of relevant literature, and everyone promised to add their new papers there, if they are relevant for this topic, so that other people do not have to search for new publications across multiple journals – and yet miss some of them.
What a disappointing news! The quarantine has been prolonged by several weeks. Scientists already have discussed everything they wanted. But they can use this additional time to plan further research! Since they already decided what is clear in the field and what has been done, no one will plan uninformative and unnecessary experiments that didn’t work out in other labs. Instead, scientists can focus on most relevant issues and – something really new! – they can distribute tasks to make sure that all current problems are covered and every lab gets the tasks which fit best with its capacities and competences, regardless of the fact that these labs sometimes are located even on the opposite sides of the Earth.
After the lockdown scientists continued their work in labs. They noticed that their students now understand the tasks and new articles much better – because they already have read the online textbook of the field and have practically the best possible level of knowledge of the topic. The same applies for all new students and researchers coming to the field. All new labs don’t have to search for their identity or position themselves loudly – they just undertake one of important issues where not enough resources were allocated and immediately become significant actors. The communication between different labs became easier, since they have a shared background. Projects became much more ambitious, because the tasks are distributed and coordinated across labs, so they are not limited to one or two labs anymore. Projects also run smoother, because related labs constantly share their experience in solving technical and methodological problems. Finally, the field progresses faster, since all relevant labs are focused on common goals and issues instead of promoting their own agenda.
How did we spend our quarantine?
Why we have what we have
The described process consists of two steps: (1) explication of a common background and (2) formulation of a research strategy. The latter is here more important, but the former would facilitate the process. This is nothing radical new: many elements of these two sub-processes are already present in research communication. There are reviews, there is collaboration between labs leading to the development of a common background on some issue and there are multiple textbooks in each discipline. Many authors formulate questions for future research in their papers, and some of them even do it for the whole field. However, strategical planning is often not systematic, is not reflected enough and does not appear at a level which is as global as it could be nowadays.
Why is our common background fragmented or distorted? Science is a special type of activity, because its goal is to professionally generate new knowledge. This means that the scientific discourse should be a function of the knowledge acquisition process itself: there should be more texts about topics that are more important and fewer texts about topics that are less important; more texts about problematic issues where controversial opinions exist and fever texts about issues where everyone agrees and there is nothing to discuss. This (ideal) discourse can be called undistorted – it could be like this, if there were no other factors influencing scientific communication. Some of these factors are:
- Noise and randomness in the scientific communication: We miss some of important papers in the flow of literature which became extremely dense. It is often a matter of luck whether we attend a particular conference and get acquainted with a highly relevant person there or not.
- Barriers in the scientific communication: Not all results from all labs are published, especially negative ones – so we even don’t have a chance to learn about these unsuccessful experiments from journal publications. We might have no access to some of the publications because our institution did not pay for it.
- Limited capacities at the individual level: We have several projects at once, including student projects, plus teaching and administrative work, so we simply cannot read all literature from every field for every single project in order to evaluate how important or innovative some of the ideas are, unless there is a good recent review exactly on this issue.
- Institutional pressure: We need to carry out projects, publish papers to apply for funding, obtain a degree or get a position. The time to familiarize ourselves with the literature is limited, the circle of minimal necessary literature is not determined, and as a result we are often forced to start a project with wrong assumptions or incomplete picture of the field in mind, and only in the process learn how it should have been done (hopefully not too late) – who of us has never had this situation? Another downside of institutional pressure is that we can take a safer way and test some trivial hypothesis with a slight variation, in order to increase probability of getting publishable positive results, while important but risky problems remain untouched.
- Varying terminology: Same terms can mean different things, while same things can be called differently, which makes keywords as a searching tool sometimes misleading. Again, it takes time to solve all these complications – precious time which we not always have.
- Fashion, hype and personality of other researchers: Some topics receive more attention than they deserve, because they resonate with current political or cultural circumstances or because they are promoted by charismatic researchers, while some more important issues may remain overshadowed because they don’t sound that cool or because people who generated these ideas are not able to communicate them loudly enough.
- Competitive and market-like culture: Scientific work is largely structured as a market, where everyone has to advertise themselves, sell their ideas and collect publications, citations and impact, which then is converted into financial and symbolic benefits. Marketing promotes distinction, not cooperation: everyone has to make a unique offer, cultivate their difference from others, not similarity – new effect, new abbreviation, catchy title of the paper or conference, description of how the project is unique and different from all other projects in the field etc.
All of these factors have been recognized and discussed before. What is new here is the idea that they all are parts of one and the same problem: they all lead to distortion and fragmentation of our knowledge structures or scientific communication. We need to reflect on their consequences and disadvantages they bring and compensate for them in our work. I.e., we need to close all leading scientists in one room and to let them formulate common background and develop research strategy for the field – and not for themselves as individuals or small teams.
Luckily, we have new technologies to help us with this. Internet not only intensifies flows of information in our lives. It also makes us less dependent on local context and gives us an opportunity to build virtual communities according to thematic fits and, most importantly, coordinate our work as a community at a global level. It can help us to better structure the discourse, to distribute tasks, to reduce the role of personality and focus on explicit rational arguments instead and, finally, to learn to cooperate rather than to compete.
Building virtual scientific communities
Knowledge is social in nature – we gain and shape it together, share it with each other and evaluate it collectively. Knowledge is embedded into social structures, and yet we often have an illusion that we possess it alone. In some sense our individual mind is not individual at all, since almost everything we know is just a compilation of things that other people know too. Although frightening for the individualistic culture, this idea highlights our interconnections with others – the basis of communication and social life.
Scientific knowledge, as every other kind of knowledge, is embedded into scientific social structures. These structures are, for example, faculties and departments, labs, professional organizations or long-term collaborations between single scientists or labs. Journals and regular conferences build a virtual or real community around themselves too. While many virtual communities are built just for informal communication on interesting topics, such as communities of cat lovers or fans of a musical band on Facebook, scientific community has its goal at generating new knowledge. This means, that any distortion or incompleteness of the picture results at wasting resources – testing wrong hypotheses, loosing time with reading unrelated literature or missing important publications on the topic. That’s why it is so important that information flows are organized in a best possible way allowing to achieve the minimal required knowledge structure in everyone’s individual mind in that community to ensure effective communication and coordination. This should not be a matter of luck, whether you learn about a new important paper or not. Neither can we rely on creative chaos which results in new ideas: we all know astonishing examples when the same discoveries were made in science simultaneously and independently from each other – not because there is some mystery about that, but simply because people who share the same background and work on the same problem come to the same solutions. These people could work together and, probably, get their results faster. So, we need communities with structured knowledge and effective communication and coordination.
But if we look at the existing communities, we will notice that they still are largely organized according to physical presence of researchers (labs, departments, faculties, regional or macro-regional organizations) or static topics (research field, subject of research, particular approach). This makes sense because, on the one hand, resources for research are distributed in the physical world, still mostly at the national or regional level; on the other hand, model of an object is something very natural and basic which we understand intuitively – although I cannot touch and see cognition, but it is natural for me to think about cognition as if it is a thing which exists somewhere in the physical world, has its parts etc. And yet, although it looks logical and natural to keep the things like this, I claim that we need another basis for building our research communities, and this basis is global research strategy.
Global research strategy is what scientists got in the thought experiment described at the beginning of this essay – an explicit list of most relevant questions and goals defining the closest and more distant future of the field, the intention to work towards these goals and concrete agreements about coordination of this work. This strategy is global because it is not bound with a particular lab, regional, national or macro-regional context – everyone can join it regardless of their location. It is called strategy because it’s dynamic and prospective, future-oriented, rather than static and descriptive, presenting what is already known. Research strategy is a unit which is bigger than a single project, but smaller than a discipline or a field. Importantly, it’s not only about the size – research strategy is also qualitatively different from other units that we use to structure our work and communication.
Questions and goals, not topics and projects
The most important thing about research strategy is that it is future-oriented. It is about goals and questions, not descriptions and answers. Our mental units that we use to think about science are field, topic and project. Topics and fields define our positioning of ourselves in the virtual community (“I am a cognitive scientist working on attention and the motor system” – by saying this I identify myself with some group and distinguish myself from all other groups), while projects define our operational level, the work we do (“I have a project where I investigate how the motor system responds to horizontal attentional shifts”). Topics and fields are very natural for our thinking, since they represent very complex and often abstract phenomena or constructs as concrete objects, so that we can think about them as located somewhere, attached to some other phenomena, consisting of parts or modules etc. Projects come from management and they are indeed very useful: project is time-limited and has measurable outcomes, which makes it effective to think in this terms about our work – it can be planned, split into steps and evaluated. Actually, project is future-oriented too. But there is also a conflict here, because scientific knowledge is not structured in projects: some questions are too broad to be answered in a single project, and some projects are relevant for several questions or even disciplines at the same time. Another problem is that the project, when formulated by a single researcher or a lab, is a compromise between what the field really needs (as this person or this lab sees it), which resources this person or lab has and what would be most beneficial for this lab in terms of resulting impact, and safety (don’t forget about negative results!). One more limitation is that the lab or a person simply cannot start a project which requires more resources than this lab or person has – this limits the range of possible projects a lot. How many brilliant ideas were formulated – and forgotten for decades until someone occasionally found some of them in an old paper and realized as a project? How many useless projects we do without knowing that other labs have already failed with the same idea? How many times we had a feeling that we do something very special on a narrow topic that no one actually needs and will ever need in the future? And how to solve these problems? Ideally, projects should be subordinated to goals and questions relevant for the discipline, not to technical capacities, financial situation or fragmented understanding of the field developed by a particular person or a lab under time pressure. Scientific work is driven by questions and goals – not projects, however convenient they are.
Topics and fields are represented in journals by keywords. If you have ever searched for papers by using keywords, you probably noticed that they are merely knowledge bags where everything is just being thrown without any structure – more and less important papers, central for the field and less related publications, reviews, experimental reports, commentaries and just everything which is somehow in touch with the topic. Every new scientist has to develop his or her knowledge structure from scratch and constantly track and filter new literature to update this structure. If a global virtual community existed which worked on a particular question or towards a particular goal, this community could structure the knowledge collectively by sorting the literature into more and less relevant for the question or a goal and keeping track of knowledge, updating its parts with new publications – imagine it as a topic in the online-forum, where every new message is in a dialog with previous messages, and all participants try to answer the initial question. I can just come, read the forum till the recent point and join the discussion. This can save a lot of time for everyone and facilitate development of shared understanding in the field, overcoming the problem of fragmentation.
Questions and goals can have structure, they can be parts of higher-order questions and goals or be themselves split into smaller questions and goals. Keywords are all equal, they are associatively related to each other, since some of them appear together – but they do not build any hierarchy. Questions can be answered and goals can be achieved. This progress can be evaluated and direction can be corrected. Keywords have no answer – they come and disappear, creating isolated islands of unstructured knowledge around them. Our very way of thinking is fragmentary and associative because of keywords used to structure knowledge, instead of goals and questions.
One might object that if someone else has already defined all important questions and goals, and even selected most relevant literature, then no space for individual creativity remains. First, questions and goals are defined collectively, which means that all labs and researchers experienced in this field should have influence on this process. Second, questions and goals give direction, but they do not define the exact steps – how to reach a convincing answer or how to achieve the goal in the best possible way leaves a lot of space for creativity. Third, in the process of answering, we can transform the question by reformulating it, specifying or splitting into smaller parts – it is not a closed system. Finally, participation in research strategy is voluntary – if someone thinks, they have a better idea of what should be done, they are still free to do it outside of the research strategy.
You might think that it is trivial, to formulate questions and goals for future research, because everyone is already doing it – at the end of the paper or a thesis, sometimes in reviews, in grant proposals or informal discussions after conferences. There are two problems about it. First, it’s not systematic – sometimes we do it, sometimes not. We are all too busy with what we just found and what we want to present right now that we have not so much time to think of a broader context of the whole field. And not all of us are even able at all to do it, because our knowledge is distorted or fragmented. Thus, formulating research strategy for the field must be a special explicit effort, maybe the most important genre we need now – and yet it is missing, scattered in many texts, often merely formal just because everyone expects something like this to be said somewhere here in the paper or a thesis. The second problem is that we all think small. Science requires us to go deeper and deeper in details of our work to become experts, and at some point even most experienced of us can lose broader picture, not to talk about master and PhD students and postdocs. If you ask most prominent researchers in your field what the most relevant questions and goals at the moment are, you might get surprisingly different answers, or even notice that they need some time to figure out what to say. Even more confusion might cause the question why exactly these questions and goals are important right now. Note that global research strategy is not what I am going to do in my next project, and not how our lab is going to spend next few months, but how the whole field should develop, where efforts of multiple labs and researchers should be focused.
Coordination, not competition
As discussed before, scientific culture is largely competitive and organized according to marketing principles. In fact, internet even promotes it: the more intensive the flow of information is and the more noise surrounds us, the louder one has to be to catch attention. As a result, this market-like culture distorts our could-be-ideal discourse and competitiveness prevents us from collaboration. We have an invisible boundary between silence and self-promotion – and this boundary is publication in a journal. Before publication we try to tell others as little as possible about the project, being afraid that they can steal our ideas. After the publication we try to tell others as much and loudly as possible, to make sure that everyone has heard our ideas. Quite a strange practice, if we think about it more, which is only justified by the fact that the number of publications is the basis for getting funding or obtaining a position. So, finally it’s all about limited local resources, what prevents us from unlimited international collaboration. And even international funding programs still do not solve the problem – they just shift the competition at the higher level, since everyone has to compete against other researchers from their field, instead of collaborating with them. It looks even more ridiculous if we remember that we all live in the same physical world, have the same bodies and very similar genes and brains, read more or less the same literature with other specialists from our field and work on the same problems. Remember, we think we possess some unique knowledge, but this is just an illusion – this knowledge does not belong us, we just borrowed it from someone else.
So, what is this, which gives us advantages in a competition? These are two components: (1) formulated questions or goals and (2) methods to answer or achieve them. Projects that ask deeper and more relevant questions and suggest better research methods get the funding. But what will happen, if all most relevant questions are already formulated by the leading researchers in the field and are freely available for everyone? Only methods remain the potential field of competition, and it is much easier to reach an agreement and collaborate with someone, if you both try to answer the same question, even if your approaches are somewhat different. This means that simply by formulating research strategy we already increase probability of collaboration in the field and decrease competitiveness, even if we cannot change the system of financing research at this point.
It is well-known that the average number of co-authors in natural and technical sciences is higher than in social sciences and humanities. Co-authoring a paper means to accept and share views expressed there. The number of co-authors is then an indicator of how unified and coherent the knowledge in a given field is – and this is not a good news for humanities and social sciences. Formulating questions which will intensify collaboration and decrease competitiveness is one of the steps towards building virtual communities, whose coordinated work will ultimately lead to more coherent understanding of the world.
It is possible that with increasing coordination more specialization will come: some labs will only collect data, others perform analyses and meta-analyses, and a group of people can only write reviews and theoretical papers. As long as everyone’s contribution is recognized by including them in the list of co-authors and submitting grant proposals together, and this whole work is well coordinated, this is not a problem. A lab can collect data in one research network, being at the same time an analyst or a theoretical hub in another – this what many of us already do as individuals. The only difference here is just the level of coordination. This allows newly established labs or young scientists to actively participate in the most cutting-edge research regardless of how methodologically rich and theoretically advanced their actual local environment is. More advanced and established labs loose nothing: answering questions and reaching goals usually leads to new questions and new goals in science, so there will be always something to do for everyone.
Continuity, not fashion
Apart from gaps in our discourse that are related to physical location and need to establish ourselves on the market with our unique scientific products, there are other gaps which are associated with the dimension of time. Scientists are also people and thus they are also prone to fashion. Some new hot topics appear and everyone starts working on them – either because we find them really interesting, or because we understand that it will bring us more attention and associated citations, or both. Then everyone gets tired of the topic and we abandon it, waiting for some new inspiring key words. It is natural – but it is not strategic. If we carefully read old papers we might notice how many important ideas were forgotten for longer time in order to appear nowadays for some external reason – differently formulated and starting again from zero unless someone will point to the congruency between the two topics. This effect is also a result of missing explicit research strategy, where all important questions and goals are documented, along with their changes, so that everyone starting working on some question can track back how it appeared, was reformulated, where it comes from and which important discussion in this issue has already happened – regardless of specific terms used in one or another period. This is similar to what we all do in the introduction of our research theses, but again the difference is that a global research strategy is collective, not individual. The more information we have, the more important it is to organize it to get knowledge – and we are reaching a point where there is so much information that we cannot organize it individually anymore. Explicit research strategy ensures continuity of the discourse not only between researchers and labs, but also between generations of scientists.
This continuity does not mean that science makes a step out of time and becomes preserved in itself. Researchers still can leave the strategy for some time to work on other prompt projects and then come back to the strategy with these new ideas. Strategy is open for reasonable and well-justified changes, but creates a barrier against random noise and fashion.
Subject of research first
Subject of research must be the reference point in all fields where possible. National contexts distort the discourse – some labs in some countries receive more financial support than other labs in other countries, which gives them an opportunity to develop their lines of research more intensively, without guaranteeing that this line of research is indeed most important for this field at this moment. Coordination will ensure that a common plan is achieved and tasks are distributed across labs or researchers all over the world in the best possible way. Thus, if some very important task receives not enough funding in one country for some reasons, and the field cannot progress without this task to be performed, other labs can take it over. On the other hand, if a lab sees that many other actors are already involved in a particular task and the work is progressing, this lab can look for other tasks that are important too, but received less attention.
Once again: the subject of research and the needs of a particular research field should explicitly prevail over financial situations, individual self-promotion and random noise coming from the local environment. Even if we cannot reach this goal now, since we are still parts of many other systems, the act of formulating a research strategy as if we were free of these distorting factors will itself push the field towards new principles of thinking and communication. While planning next projects, scientists will read the research strategy and try to coordinate their (yet very much individual) projects with it, which will naturally lead to more and more convergence around these goals and questions.
How to develop a research strategy: Globally, decentralized, inclusively
Organizations, formal and informal networks, regular conferences are the natural agents which could start this process of transformation. What they should start doing to transform the discourse to a structured one is to formulate questions, rather than promote themselves; coordinate distribution of tasks among members and keep track of progress. However, even if these agents are not interested in developing a research strategy, an initiative group of scientists from the field can initiate this process. It is not necessary that members of this group are all leading scientists in the field. Note that the field here can be defined very differently – it can be a very narrow topic, a particular theory, or a subject of research corresponding (more or less) to a “departmental” level or the whole discipline – it does not matter. Since there is a natural hierarchy of topics and problems, even if not explicit one, the process of formulating a strategy can start at any level, and this strategy can be later aggregated by higher levels or be specified at lower levels, if the actors there decide to join the initiative.
1. The first step is to identify potential participants of this new virtual community – leading researchers in the field. The criteria here can be discussed, for example:
- Everyone who has a PhD and at least 10 publications in the field
- Everyone who is a professor and works in the field
- Everyone who has at least 15 publications with particular keywords
- Ask each of 5 leading scientists from your field to name other 5 important scientists working in the same field, contact them and repeat the question. Continue doing so until you exhaust professional networks. Then select those who satisfy particular criteria (e.g., everyone, or those who were named by at least 3 other people etc.)
Regardless of the exact criteria, this process of pre-selection should be objective, strict and inclusive, to ensure that as many as possible actors from the field are included and there is no systematic distortion in the selection procedure. The result of this step is a list of potential participants who are able to formulate a research strategy.
2. The second step is to contact all potential participants, to explain them the idea and advantages of having a common research strategy and get their agreement to participate. Importantly, they should understand that (a) this participation does not require much efforts from them, they are not obliged to follow the research strategy or to change their work in any way; the only thing we need from them is their expert opinion about the needs and future of the field; (b) this is not just another possibility for their self-promotion, but a collective act of strategical planning; all individual answers will be later collectively evaluated and accepted or rejected. So ask experts to think big.
The result of this step is a list of actual participants. Again, it should be as inclusive as possible with respect to the previous list.
3. The third step is to collect questions and goals formulated by participants. Examples of questions are:
- What are components of X?
- Which factors influence development of Y and how?
- Which theory is true – A or B?
Examples of goals are:
- We need a computational model of M. It should have such and such properties.
- We need a review/meta-analysis of research on N with a particular focus on aspects D and F.
- We need a systematic cross-cultural investigation of L.
Questions and goals can be more or less concrete at the beginning, this is not a problem since they will be either specified or combined into bigger ones later. Whenever possible, such questions and goals should be formulated in a language which can be understood by non-specialists and general public. This will facilitate interdisciplinary interaction and allow non-scientific actors (e.g., journalists, policy makers or professional organizations) to discuss and evaluate the strategy, thus giving their feedback on it, or use it for their long-term planning.
It should be underlined again that the ultimate goal for participants is to develop a strategy for the field, not for themselves. It does not exclude their own current research interests, but they should be evaluated as objectively as possible. This initiative cannot be used promoting own research. Importantly, every question or goal should be justified, i.e., if you suggest a question or a goal, you should also briefly explain why exactly you think it is important (a word limit can be helpful here). A moderator or a group of moderators collects all answers and tries to organize them, by bringing together identical or almost identical questions and goals. Note that moderators cannot remove anything at this point, especially if they are uncertain about whether they understand it correctly – finally we are dealing here with the knowledge of the best experts in the field, so we should assume they thought a lot about every word.
4. Collective evaluation of the questions and goals. At this stage the outline of the final document – research strategy – should be defined. It can happen in different formats, depending on the number of experts, density of their personal contacts or suspicion that they ignored the request to be objective at the previous stage:
- Experts can receive a document with all questions and goals plus explanations why these questions and goals are important. Experts comment on it and suggest their changes, the moderator tries to apply these changes and sends the new version out. The process repeats until everyone is satisfied with the final document. This could be an option for smaller groups of participants.
- The same process can happen online in a shared document, where exerts can directly suggest changes and have short discussions.
- An online-forum can be used where experts have longer discussions either anonymously or not. Anonymous discussion may help to remove personal attitudes and factors from the discussion and focus on arguments. In any case it should be ensured that only authorized people participate in the discussion – which means that there should be a moderator or technical support. The forum can be either publicly available, since the discussion itself might be interesting for those who do not participate in the strategical planning, or hidden and only available by invitation.
Very similar questions or goals should be merged in order to reduce the fragmentation of the field. Also a vertical structure can appear at this stage: some questions are subordinate to other questions. It is also possible that there will be incompatible interpretations – problematize them too as sub-questions and build into the strategy with both conflicting interpretations listed, since they will also serve for future interaction. If too many participants are involved and strategy becomes too dispersed, large groups of questions and goals can be separated from each other and form smaller strategies. One and the same person can participate in different strategies – this is not a problem, since strategies are first of all abstract impersonal structures which direct thoughts and work of participants into a particular direction, and only then – concrete embodied networks.
The result of this step is a document where most important strategic questions and goals for the field are defined, with explanations following each question or goal – why it is important and what we get from answering this question or reaching this goal.
5. Prioritizing goals and questions (optional): at this stage, experts may agree on prioritizing goals and questions. This can happen anonymously by voting. It should be underlined again that this procedure is not for self-promotion, and even if there are priorities set, everyone is still free to decide what question they are working on, or whether they participate in the research strategy at all. Another aspect to highlight here is that prioritizing should be based not only on the intuitive perception of the question or goal, how familiar or cool it sounds, but mostly on the explanation following the question or goal – how important it is and why.
6. Publication of the research strategy. When published, research strategy becomes a collective statement and a basis for new social interactions in the field, so it should be made publicly available for everyone. One option could be a publication of it with all participants listed as co-authors – this will attract a lot of attention to this publication and facilitate its discussion, so it starts working. Another option is to create a website and publish the strategy there, since it will be constantly updated. The website can be integrated with a forum for discussion. Also both can be done – a journal publication and an online presentation.
7. Implementation of the research strategy. While the strategy was developed by the leading scientists from the field, it is open and can be implemented by everyone. This is what it was developed for – to focus everyone’s efforts on most important issues. Implementation means nominating ourselves for working on some question or goal, creating virtual teams (regardless whether we know each other personally or not), discussing approaches and distributing tasks, informing others about our progress and presenting results. It is possible that multiple teams or researchers work on the same question in parallel, if they cannot combine their approaches – but they will at least know about each other and interactively follow each other’s results, which can lead to convergence in a long-term perspective. Another outcome of multiple teams working in parallel can be higher reliability of results (similarly to replications initiatives) and cross-cultural comparisons. An optimal format for communication and coordination could be an online forum where only authorized users can register. Probably a moderator or a group of moderators could control, so that no one uses this joint space for unrelated self-promotion, but only for goal-oriented communication. Discussions can be open up to some point, so that everyone willing to join the initiative can do it, and after a certain point they can become private, in order to coordinate very specific details that are not interesting for other participants. Participants should be open for collaboration with unknown users as long as they like their ideas or approaches and appreciate their contribution to the discussion. This is a major difference from our traditional research networks, where the personal contact comes first, and collaboration follows with some probability.
8. Updating the research strategy. Research strategy should structure our work, but it is not carved in stone. The strategy must be updated with new data and ideas coming, new necessary distinctions can be made or new merges between different questions can happen. The progress on each question or goal should be formally evaluated and communicated, to update everyone’s knowledge. Finally, some questions can be answered and goals achieved – and they must be removed from the strategy. All important changes in the strategy can be communicated via publications with as many authors as possible (potentially – everyone working on this particular question or goal), thus guiding other people in the scientific community in the direction defined by the strategy, even if they do not participate in the strategy explicitly.
An additional step made either by the experts (step 4) or by the community actually working on each question or goal (step 7) can be defining a list of minimal necessary literature that everyone has to be familiar with if he or she wants to participate in work on that particular question. This is different from the thought experiment at the beginning, where researchers first defined common assumptions and then came to the strategy. A reverse engineering is needed here, in the real world, because we do not have unlimited time and one space where all relevant people can share their knowledge until it is merged – so it is easier to start with the strategy and then define the necessary background for each question separately. This is important not only for people who are already working on a particular question (although it will help them to understand each other better), but also for newcomers, e.g., new students and labs, who are willing to participate in the strategy – don’t forget, they are still under institutional and time pressure. This list of minimal required literature should always have a limited volume, so that everyone is able to read it within a few weeks and start understanding the discussion on the forum. At the same time, the list should not be closed and can be changed according to changes in the field. Its primary goal is to represent common knowledge of everyone who works on this particular question. It does not mean that everyone knows only what is listed – people also have other interests, different backgrounds and read other literature around. The complex picture of the field in every individual mind will be achieved by reading discussions and updates on other questions and goals within the research strategy, especially on its theoretical aspects – pretty much the same what we already do now, just in a more structured way.
Three key words about research strategies are: globality, decentralization, inclusion. The strategy is global: it does not depend on local contexts and everyone can join it if he or she has enough resources and competence to work on a particular question or goal. The strategy coordinates scientific work globally, despite the fact that most of resources are still provided by local agents – states, national funding agencies and macro-regional organizations. The strategy is decentralized: there are no formal leaders in the strategy and no one can benefit alone from its existence, but only the whole field. There is a danger of monopolization of intellectual resources here: some actors will formulate ideas and interpret results, whereas others will be just reduced to data collection stations which limits their intellectual development. This should never happen, and this is what is prevented by explanations of importance for every goal and question: even if I just collect or analyze the data in some project, I still understand the broader context – why I am doing it and for what purpose, which allows me to participate in further discussion too. Finally, the strategy is inclusive: every project should try to incorporate all people willing to join it, not to exclude them. Even if it is impossible to include someone, participants should give a feedback and explain why they don’t want this person to be in the project and make suggestions about other tasks nearby that might be fitting with this person’s interests and abilities. Research strategy is about coordination and best distribution of resources, including human resources.
How professional organizations and associations will change
Professional organizations and associations are a natural basis for developing research strategies and many of them already do it in some form, more or less systematically. Members of such organizations already constitute networks that are highly congruent with the structure of knowledge in their field and introducing a formal research strategy will not change much at the beginning. However, having a research strategy explicated and agreed by everyone will make a difference in a long-term perspective: first, newcomers will be able to better understand the field and identify their interests; second, it increases commitment and engagement of members of the organization, since they define together the future of the field; third, developing a strategy increases the value of organization for the field. Importantly, although the organization can take the initiative and start working on a research strategy, it does not make this organization to the “owner” of this research strategy – the strategy belongs to everyone working in the field, also for those who are not members of that organization. The organization can provide its resources for developing the strategy and supporting its technical needs (such as a forum for discussions), but not use the strategy for self-promotion or forcing people to join the organization.
How journals and publications will change
Journals completely covering a narrow field could initiate development of a global research strategy in that field in the same way as organizations do – with the same requirements.
Authorship in publications resulting from interactions in research strategies should be rather inclusive, as long as it is compatible with guidelines of the journal. If there is a conflict about whether to include a person as a co-author or not, an anonymous voting can be used among other authors with a certain threshold needed for a positive decision, e.g., 80%. In any case, some form of reward for those whose contribution was valuable but did not resulted in authorship should be developed, such as rating on the forum.
Preregistration will be facilitated by the presence of the research strategy, since distant and often unfamiliar with each other participants who distribute tasks have to clearly define them in advance anyway, so it is just a matter of a few hours to generate a protocol out of these discussions and submit it to a journal prior to the study. It might be even introduced as a part of rules for participants of a strategy – to pre-register all studies, since it prevents misunderstandings at early stages.
Groups working in parallel on the same issue can decide for two different publications or consider one joint publication – the latter requires additional efforts from them in order to make the studies more comparable and leads to more convergence in the field. Journals should be ready to deal with such combined publications and develop their guidelines about coherence of such texts if needed. A similar change can appear in theoretical papers and reviews: if there are two or three people willing to write a paper on X, as it is formulated in the research strategy, but they have very different opinions about some aspects of X, they can simply co-author one paper and present their different opinions in it with arguments pro and contra. Again, this structures the discourse more, since everyone reading this paper will learn about all possible opinions at once, instead of occasionally finding only one or two out of three papers on the topic and having to match their arguments against each other and reconstruct the discussion by her- or himself.
Reviewing process might change too: now other experts from the field review papers on some issue. The task of an editor is to find experts who work on the topic as close as possible, and at the same time do not have conflicts of interests with authors. It can be impossible if all relevant experts already co-author the paper or participated in the preparation of the study, due to more convergence within a research strategy. In that case, however, only technical reviewing is needed, which can be done by specialists from close field, since the content of the paper is already at the best possible level: all experts in the field have discussed or even co-authored it. The fact that reviewing will be rather technical can speed up publication process; most of important discussions will happen less formally well before the paper is submitted.
There are two types of publications with respect to the research strategy: publications that are directly discussing the strategy (“We need to formulate another additional question in the strategy…” or “We found a final answer to the question N. The answer is…”) and publications that are relevant for the strategy, but do not even explicitly mention it. Publications explicitly related to the research strategy could have some indicators, e.g., keywords with special coding of a particular research strategy unit (question or goal) or, if the majority of journal authors already participate in a strategy, it can become an additional tag, along with keywords. More traditional format of special issues is quite slow and inflexible, but it may be appropriate for some important shifts in the strategy, e.g., appearance of a new theory that has implications for many questions and goals, which should be reflected and discussed.
Someone can use discussions on the forum of a research strategy and publish a study or a theoretical paper based on this without referring to the strategy. If participants of the strategy find it critical, they can try to use the forum with dates and times tracked in order to prove their authorship. On the other hand, in most of the cases this does not prevent them from performing the study and publishing it, while discussing in the paper a recently published study by N. In the worst case, for example if the study was performed on a unique sample which is exhausted by N, participants of the strategy can publish a commentary where they explicitly drag the cheating publication into the magnetic field of the strategy by discussing its implications for the strategy, despite the fact that N does not recognize it. The same kind of publications can follow any related publication whose author for some reason does not participate in the research strategy, although de facto works on it. This kind of publication behavior will fulfil the goal of the research strategy – to bring more convergence into the field around most important goals and questions.
Publications will not be defined by individual needs anymore (“Now I need to write a review, then three papers with experiments.”), neither by journals (“Let’s make a special issue on X, because it’s a hot topic now and people will buy it.”), but by the needs of the field – first of all. Some people say we need more reviews and meta-analyses, others say we need more data. Maybe both sides are right, but in their fields. An explicit research strategy will show what is needed at the moment, and someone will undertake these tasks.
How conferences will change
Conferences are often random and chaotic, since we may or may not attend a particular conference for some external reasons, and we may or may not get in touch with someone having critical knowledge for our work. Conferences are competitive, starting from symposia where we compete for the right to organize our meeting on one or another topic, up to individual talks and posters, where we try to get as much attention as possible from everyone, with the hope that exactly the right people will occasionally hear us. Conferences are justified by the fact that we can learn there about ongoing research which has not yet been published – but if we have a research strategy and a forum where we can read all these discussions online, why do we need conferences at all? We will practically have a never-ending online conference with most relevant people from our field without any associated costs, so the importance of conferences might decrease.
But we still will need conferences for two reasons. First, we are not cyborgs yet and personal contact and discussion can bring a new impression of a person and deeper understating of their ideas. Second, it is important for scientists to travel and get in touch with different cultures and contexts – this broadens our mind and improves our understanding of colleagues who live and work in these various environments, which might be even more important when research activity becomes more focused due to explicit strategy.
A possible option for conferences on a given research strategy is to offer broader cross-sectional discussions which do not happen on the forum of the research strategy, particularly focusing on theoretical, philosophical and methodological issues, which have implications for everyone in the field. Regardless of the concrete solution, conferences should be seen as local resources that should be subordinated to the global research strategy of the field, like any other resource that we have.
How individual scientific development and graduation will change
Perhaps the main concern regarding individual scientific development is that many scientists will not be able to formulate questions, but rather will become mere workers in projects outlined by someone else. This concern is related to our current research training which necessarily includes reading, formulating a question, further literature search, specifying the question, performing the study and interpreting the results – necessarily performed by the person who wants to obtain a degree. However, many PhD positions are in fact created after getting funding on a particular topic, i.e., the general framework for these projects is already outlined by someone else. Questions do not limit creativity but guide it. The method to answer the question, the way to interpret it and to formulate sub-questions can vary and leave enough space for individual freedom. What is different in the case of a global research strategy is only that (1) these questions are coordinated at a higher level and (2) everyone in the world has access to the full list of these questions.
Ability to formulate questions themselves is an issue. Should a bachelor, master or PhD student formulate new questions leading scientific research all over the world? Even the most experienced scientists not always formulate completely new questions; often these questions are inspired by philosophers or other scientists. Clearly, after a certain point individuals should start participating in formulating the questions and evaluating the state of knowledge. Probably, broader educational perspective will be needed to compensate for developing unification of intellectual development: second field of interests, parallel projects, philosophical education, more interaction with fields outside of science could be options to keep individuals open-minded. This will be even easier, since the main field will be better structured and thus will require less efforts and time for reading tens and hundreds of unrelated or weakly related papers, thus leaving more time for other subjects. Moreover, having research strategy may facilitate interdisciplinarity in itself, because goals and questions formulated in a clear way can be better understood by students or researchers coming from other fields, and minimal necessary literature organized by people working on the question will make it possible for everyone to easily reach necessary competence. Questions and goals lead to more convergence – also across disciplines.
Finally, not all questions we formulate are as new as we might think, as discussed before (continuity vs. fashion). By recognizing questions that are already formulated collectively, we might achieve a better evaluation of emerging ideas: how new they are, which preceding lines of research are relevant for these ideas and what exactly is new – all this should be reflected and explicated from the point of view of the field, not individual research interests and development.
Voluntariness of participation
Global research strategy is not only an abstract knowledge structure or embodied research networks, but also a different way of thinking: focusing on coordination of work to achieve the best outcome for the whole field. Those who acquire this way of thinking are already participating in the initiative and it is just a matter of time when they join or outline the strategy formally.
Participation in the research strategy cannot be compulsory, but only voluntary. Researchers and labs will join the initiative not because they have to, but because they will understand benefits of this participation for their work:
- Newly established labs and researchers who only start working in a field will get better overview of the whole field, it will be easier for them to outline their interests and position themselves in a broader research context.
- It will be easier to find collaborators, particularly from distant regions / other countries, which is often an advantage when submitting grant proposals.
- It will be easier to write grant proposals, theses or papers, since both broad research context, the general research question or goal and its relevance are already specified by the scientific community. Such projects will have better chances to receive funding.
- Increasing specialization will allow researchers and labs to be more efficient, participate in larger number of projects.
- By working on the same problem in parallel, researchers and labs can exchange their innovations and technical or methodological solutions more efficiently already during the research process.
Along with the discourse structured by the research strategy, there can be of course another field of exploratory research, where everyone will develop their own ideas and projects that they find relevant or interesting, but there is no place for them in the research strategy. Exploration is important too, and all our current research can be called exploratory. It is impossible, to absorb all current research in some field into one initiative – but the effort to do it can bring more convergence in the field than we have. It is always possible that there some important idea or question remained unnoticed by leading researchers in the field – and yet the chance of this situation is rather small, so we should not rely on exploratory science alone.
Relevant answer
Answer
Great!
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
12 answers
Decolonizing the education system has been a topic covered by a multitude of scholars in the disciplines of Sociology, psychology, Political Economy and even Political Sciences. Its main goal has been the detachment of the curriculum from its Western-centric or Euro-American pedagogy. Third world scholars claim that their voices have been ignored in the academy; furthermore, their unique perspectives and epistemologies have been suppressed, silenced and avoided. Mainstream theories of the Western world have been exported to the developing countries, compelling third world students to adapt to the knowledge economy replicating the developed countries; even after graduation, they go on to become technical workers and managers for transnational corporations. Therefore, the form of education that the Western world is spreading all over the world is in the form of an industrial trainer which benefits their International Enterprises as they absorb the educational conformist learners at the end in the job market. The postcolonial condition has witnessed the continuation of colonial administrations, business functions and path-dependence whereas the sources of income for the employed requires technical learning and highly vocational skills from the youth. Third World academics have only been given the task of interpreting Western discourse, language, International standards and educational benchmarks, without necessarily producing their own knowledge, participating and advocating their opinions and experiences. Third World academics have had to play the catch up game with the West, losing more and more courage to produce their own unique, specific, geographically located and relevant ideas. Books in institutions of higher learning, and also journal articles are usually Western-oriented. How can the third world create its own discourse, pedagogy, perspective, knowledge, theories and ideas in the 21st century? Most Third World scholars do publish books and journals intended at critiquing the continuing domination in the economic and intellectual sphere by the West, but their critiquing never follows any practical and useful recommendations nor does it provide any frontiers or introduce other ways of doing and thinking for the decolonial goal in education to be progressive and successful. What hinders the decolonization process in education?
Relevant answer
Answer
Linguistic imperialism has been a topic of great interest in the past few decades. Educational globalism has not fulfilled the expectations of the non-western societies. Prescriptions issued by educational experts in the western world should not aim to replace domestic values and traditions since " a man's meat may be another man's poison..
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
244 answers
As a researcher in business and psychology I often get the feeling that many of my colleagues have a political leaning to the left and are clearly influenced by the ideas of post modernism and neo marxism. In sociology and social psychology this is in my view clearly evident. I have a deep fear that this is something that might have a negative effect on the field of social science. What are your views regarding this? Has the left totally taken over the social sciences? Is there still a room for scientist of divergent ideas or are they more or less kept down by the majority? Your views please?
Relevant answer
Answer
Interesting question Henrik. The trouble is that the term 'post-modernism', when used by people who are neither philosophers nor sociologists, has become an empty term used to deride critical social science. It reminds me a little bit of the way that the term 'Marxist' is now used by the American Centre-Right media to designate any politician with a strong redistributive platform - including people like Corbyn and Sanders, whose policies in no way propose to dismantle the Capitalist economy.
In a similar way, people like Jordan Peterson use "post-modernism" as a slur. Peterson's online lectures on the "damages" of postmodern academia clearly show that he does not really understand what the concept really means. He just throws Marxism, cultural Marxism, critical theory, structuralism, post-structuralism, and postmodernism, into the same bag.
I haven't read Bloom and I didn't quite understand in your previous post what he defines as post-modernism. I suppose that most detractors of so-called post-modernism object to one or more of the following broad approaches in social science (all of which have at best a loose connection with actual postmodernist philosophy):
1. The notion that contemporary societies are fundamentally shaped by, and continuously reproduce, dynamics of domination, exploitation and repression. Language is an important vehicle for this (see below).
2. The idea that people's behaviours, preferences and notions of what is True largely derive from deeply rooted narratives and linguistic structures that (mostly) unconsciously shape people's minds. These narratives and other linguistic structures are socially constructed - i.e. they do not reflect some fundamental truth of 'human nature'.
3. The idea that racism and other malevolent forms can inhere not just in individuals' consciousnesses, but also in institutional structures and collective representations that are ostensibly value-neutral.
4. Methodologically, the belief that knowledge about society is found through qualitative forms of social analysis, like for example discourse and narrative analysis, grounded theory, ethnography, etc. Social analysis relying on logical-positivism and mathematical inductivism are viewed with suspicion.
Now the funny thing is that Most/all of these elements existed in social science decades before postmodernism as a social theoretical movement came to the stage. I also suspect that real postmodernist thinkers would probably object to the first element in the above list, since postmodernism is at heart an approach to knowledge that questions any inherent connection between belief systems and the world as is. Be that as it may, the point I'd make here is that the "Leftist takeover" of some social science has little to do with the (mostly imagined) popularity of "post-modernism". Many social scientists are Left Wing not because they discovered postmodernism but for a variety of reasons.
LIkewise, I would question whether your colleagues in social psychology and Business studies manifest a "post-modernism"-inspired Lefty-ism. As a discipline social psychology remains firmly moored to logical-positivism and statistical inductivism. And similarly, I don't see how your Business studies colleagues could be Left-Wing. There's some good research on business school curricula and teaching that actually shows the opposite. Perhaps you meant to say that your colleagues are Left wing and/or influenced by postmodernism in a purely private capacity? This is definitely the case in economics - the discipline in and of itself is criticized by sociologists for being methodologically uncritical and right-wing; yet the majority of American Economists in the US are actually on the Left side of the political spectrum. See for example:
So I guess one would need to understand what you are concerned about more precisely.
- Is it the feeling that most social scientists (or specific disciplines therein) are politically Left-Wing?
- Is it the feeling that most social scientists are specifically 'postmodernist' Lefties?
- Is it the feeling that social sciences DISCIPLINES tend to reflect/defend Left-wing views of the world?
- Is it the feeling that social science DISCIPLINES tend to reflect so-called POSTMODERNIST epistemology?
More generally, methodological and epistemological pluralism is generally a good think, so to the extent that there is a "takeover" as you say, that's probably bad. That said, from what I see in sociology, which perhaps is the most "non conformist" discipline in the social sciences, the "take over" by "postmodernism" is far from reality. The top journals in the discipline mostly favour articles employing standard statistical methods. The arguments in such studies do not usually take serious account of narratives, hermeneutics and historicity - all of which would be amply found in so-called postmodernist research. What IS true, however, is that the vast majority of sociologists have Left-wing political views. And I'd guess that most research does seem to align itself with Left-wing concerns (e.g. women's rights, equality, racism research, migrant issues, etc). I'm not sure what the consequences are of this on the general state of the discipline. The damages I've seen have to do with the harshness of debates taking place between more radical social thinkers and their less radical (though still largely left-wing) colleagues. Perhaps the answer to your question is that politics and the media in most countries already give disproportionate space to Centre-Right and Right-wing thinking, without ever allowing serious discussion of more genuinely left-wing stances. Hence, the Left positioning of social sciences is kind of a corrective.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
32 answers
The Covid-19 pandemic has changed the discourse for various fields specially international trade and business. Which are the topics that an IB scholar should focus on given the changed business scenario?
Relevant answer
Answer
Regionalisational strategies and marketing mix in the post COVID-19 era
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
9 answers
Distinguished peers,
Although there is a plethora of international, multilingual scientific research and knowledge regarding COVID-19, there is also lot of discourse regarding the source of the virus. I would like some feed back from experts regarding their interpretation of the latest data so that future outbreaks may be prevented and focus can be directed towards solutions to existing problems.
Thank you and regards!
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
11 answers
I am doing analysis of observation data to find out the demonstration of learner autonomy in the English learning classroom context. I have to find out the different degrees of autonomy that students demonstrated. I thought that I could find that in the classroom interations and nature of tasks that teacher organized for students. however, I have not found an effective framework to look at classroom interactions and the degrees of autonomy demonstrated. Does anyone know any refereces about conceptualizing autonomy demonstrated in the classroom in different levels? or does anyone know any discourse model that deal with similar issue?
I highly appriciate your sharing and support
With regards
Ha
Relevant answer
Answer
Informative.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
6 answers
I am seeking about a conceptual model about linking scientific theory about climate change to public perception of it.
Relevant answer
Answer
May be content analysis of mass media for a certain time interval may help.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
2 answers
I am working on a project that investigates electronic health records with a view to their person-centredness and hospital culture. I am unsure if I can approach this research from the discourse community theory (John Swales) angle: I have only the written documents at my disposal, I will not be able to do observations or interviews on site to collect data on the production of the documents. Would a mixed methods analysis (qualitative and quantitative content analysis) - in principle- be suitable to conduct a discourse community analysis?
Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this!
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Maria, thank you so much for your reply and suggestion! I will definitely check out the article you suggested and I hope for some interesting pointers. Thanks again and best wishes, Birgit
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
6 answers
Greetings Colleagues
Primary discourses are those ways of using language, literacy and multiple modes of communicating as acquired in our homes, among our families and in our initial schooling experiences.
How do you incorporate or draw on students' primary discourses to advance learning in university disciplinary domains?
My perspective is that students' orientations to language, learning and knowledge do not disappear when they arrive at the university gates.
Surely as teachers we should tap into these epistemic traditions to advance our own pedagogic goals?
Your perspectives will be appreciated.
Relevant answer
Answer
When teaching "Psychology of Religion," I'd have the students write about their personal religious experience. And, when I taught "Psychology of Self" I would have the students write about their "Personal Myth," that is, what was their purpose in living and what would be said about them, once they passed away?
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
17 answers
Globalization and Eco-lisation are similar term. We are fad up with the word 'globalisation' which promoted some level of positives through innovation, consumptios, thus, affecting entire humanities and to the earth. As we are under the serious problem of sustainability, it is touching in every context of our human life. Now, it is not required much think about globalisation, as buzz, it has got to end, but in place of globalisation, today ecololisation is attracting as the centre stage of debate and philosophy, e.g. ecological aspect of science, technology, economics, well being, humanities and what not?
We want to have some insight to the issues of ECOLISATION as the centre -stage for each and every aspects of human and intellectual discourse. I request to my friends (contributors) on this aspects and on the context, where we can apply Ecolisation i.e. concentrating the discussion on ecolisation as the philosophy, as the politics, as as the futurisation, as the engineering, as the technology, the business & economics, and in arts too.
What is your opinion? Have you ever gone through any ecolisation? How does the wisdom economics concepts impacts on ecolisation? Can we start a fresh thinking on ecolisation and how can we initiate? Friends please -
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you Dr. Micheal,
It is wonderful ideas. Let us think in which way we can start this idea for reality. Let us do think!
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
5 answers
How does metaphors shape the reader's attention and thought?
Conceptual metaphors shape the reader's attention and thought especially in media discourse where it reveals the ideologies that the writer/ speaker and editor want his audience to perceive his message.
Relevant answer
Answer
Indeed, a good starting point would be to consult George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (1980). I also recommend Zoltán Kövecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2010); Mark Turner, Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science (1991); R. W. Gibbs, The Poetics of Mind (1994); Raymond W. Gibbs article - Psycholinguistics studies on the conceptual basis of idiomaticity (1990), etc.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
6 answers
My aim is to find out how the discourse about euthanasia was framed in the media in Germany compared to the UK in 2015. To achieve this, I want to use a qualitative approach to analyse Newspaper articles. Are there any ideas, on how to approach this? And how many articles do I need to analyse?
Relevant answer
Answer
You may possibly need to focus on software based qualitative content analysis to investigate those articles. Please check the below articles:
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
5 answers
The development of civilization goes hand in hand with the development of thought. Has gender discourse attained its peak in feminism or will we surely have some other higher level of thought in gender discourse after the Age of Feminism? I think we will. Your views are welcome.
Relevant answer
Answer
Articulate from your positioning..disconnect from global north
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
8 answers
What is the relationship between formal and social discourse?
How do forms of expression of a person’s thoughts affect the understanding of his ideas?
How much is the state capable of influencing the formation of human perceptions on any issue?
Is society able to influence the essence and content of formal discourse?
What are the mechanisms for the formation of formal and social discourse?
How much has the content and mechanisms of the formation of formal and social discourse in the digital age?
Does globalization affect the mechanisms and content of formal and social discourse?
Каково соотношение формального и социального дискурса?
Насколько государство способно влиять на формирование представлений человека по какому-либо вопросу?
Насколько государство способно влиять на формирование представлений человека по какому-либо вопросу?
Способно ли общество повлиять на сущность и содержание формального дискурса?
Каковы механизмы формирования формального и социального дискурса?
Насколько изменились содержание и механизмы формирования формального и социального дискурса в цифровую эпоху?
Влияет ли глобализация на механизмы и содержание формального и социального дискурса?
Relevant answer
Answer
The official discourse is inclusive but the social part of the formal
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
2 answers
I am looking for a study that compares the discourse around intra-European mobility and integration for Eastern and Western Europeans. Mobility of Western Europeans is not addressed in public discourse, neither is there a 'need for integration'. For Eastern European 'migrants', the discourse is very different. Did someone look at this in a systematic way? Happy abobut any suggestions!
Relevant answer
Answer
Great, thanks!
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
4 answers
From the very beginning, the subject matter is a hot topic among Community Ecologists and Phytosociologists especiially for naming and claaifying vegetatin into associations or communities.
The trend of naming plant communities with dominant species is shifting towards indicator species. There could be devised possible uniform way for phytosociological classifications and this discussion may bring some fruitful suggestions.
Relevant answer
Answer
yes, but there still some controversies exist especially while naming plant associations, conmunities and zones etc. Some use the dominant species while the others based it on indicators!
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
4 answers
Given the current unrest in South Africa as regards intra-continental migration, isnt it time to revisit academic discourse on the socioeconomic, political and cultural perspectives of migration?
Relevant answer
Answer
There is one going on in Europe as we speak and it is called Brexit. Brexit is a confluence of a panoply of factors that include nationalism, sovereignty, culture, as well as other sociio-economic considerations. Immigration forms a large part of Brexit and for some, it is the main or determining factor in Britain's decision to exit the EU. This is an example of intra-continental migration.
Social science has always addressed the subject of inter as well as intra continental migration and often the same themes recur, such as mentioned above. Other additional features may include the racial and ethnic composition of migrants and how they are perceived by host nations.
i am not sure that what is happening in South Africa is significantly different to other cases where tension arises between migrants and their host, despite the need to identify specific factors that may lie at the heart of this occurrence. While the violence is deplorable, the facts that attend as causality appear to be the same.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
5 answers
Good Day! I am Mary Rose Lumayag. I am a 5th years BS Architecture student in Ateneo de Davao University who is taking an undergraduate thesis in this school year. I am venturing on a study which is entitled “A Proposed Mental Healthcare Facility: A Causal-comparative Study on Reconstructing a Mental Health Care Facility with the Concept of Neuro-architecture for the Transitional Youth”. In lieu with this, I need utmost guidance from professionals such as psychiatrists, psychologists, and architects who are knowledgeable with this discourse in order for me to further comprehend the effects of hospital-based and community-based facility for the benefit of the users (such as patients and staff) which will be reflected upon the case studies of my thesis. I am hoping for your generous response. Thank you!
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello, the mentoring can be particularly relevant for transition age youth and young adults with serious mental health conditions. Research has shown that the 'transition years' are often the developmental period when young people experience their first onset of a mental disorder, or serious mental health challenges.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
23 answers
Max Scheler focuses on human feelings and considers love to be the essence of human nature. Scheler’s argument opens up a broad horizon of possible interpretations regarding the meaning of being human. Contemporary philosophical anthropology takes its point of departure from two opposing conceptions: that attributed to Scheler and that of Plessner. With Scheler and Plessner the anthropological discourse takes into account the challenges emerging from the sciences as well as from the humanities. Scheler focuses on human feelings and considers the love to be the essence of the nature of man. Scheler defines the logic of love as different from the logic of pure reason. Today we can see a new significant interest in emotions, so much so that we openly speak about Emotional Turn and, under the pressure of the migration flows involving Europe, about the consequent increasing interest in themes concerning intercultural and interreligious dialogue. This process has in turn increased the interest for empathy questions and alterity’s phenomenology.
Relevant answer
Answer
@ Martin Klvana
have a look at this link please
Scheler's Phenomenology of Love
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
13 answers
In discourses about climate change the purpose of migration is discussed controversially. Some say, climate change migration does not exist as migration has many causes, others claim migration because of climate change is a way of adaptation, others see migration as failed adaptation. Please contribute to the discourse.
Relevant answer
Answer
“Southern Italy (Mezzogiorno), the source of more than 75 percent of immigration to the United States, was an impoverished region possessing a highly stratified, virtually feudal society... Angelo Pellegrini, who became a successful immigrant, remembered his sharecropping family: "The central, dominating fact of our existence was continuous, inadequately rewarded labor.... Education beyond the third grade was out of the question.... At eight or nine years of age, if not sooner, the peasant child is old enough to bend his neck to the yoke and fix his eyes upon the soil in which he must grub for bread. I did not know it then, but I know it now, that is a cruel, man-made destiny from which there is yet no immediate hope of escape." (Angelo Pellegrini,Immigrant's Return.New York: Macmillan, 1952; pp. 11, 21.)
The impact of unification on the South was disastrous. The new constitution heavily favored the North, especially in its tax policies, industrial subsidies, and land programs. The hard-pressed peasantry shouldered an increased share of national expenses, while attempting to compete in markets dominated more and more by outside capitalist intrusions. These burdens only exacerbated existing problems of poor soil, absentee landlords, inadequate investment, disease, and high rates of illiteracy.
An exodus of southerners from the peninsula began in the 1880s. Commencing in the regions of Calabria, Campania, Apulia, and Basilicata, and spreading after 1900 to Sicily, Italian emigration became a torrent of humanity. From 1876-1924, more than 4.5 million Italians arrived in the United States, and over two million came in the years 1901-1910 alone. Despite these massive numbers, it should be noted that roughly two-thirds of Italian migration went elsewhere, especially to Europe and South America. Immigration to the United States before and after this period accounted for approximately one million additional arrivals—a considerable movement in its own right—but the era of mass migration remains central to the Italian immigrant experience”.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
2 answers
Actually i would like to have clues on how to structure the review of literature of such a research topic: what elements should feature in the review of literature of this work?
I aim at doing a critical discourse analysis in which issues of identity construction and ideology are highlighted in looking at how social actors are depicted in discourse. will it be corrrect?
thanks in advance for your various contributions.
Relevant answer
Answer
In a review of the literature on any topic, a researcher is expected to have done enough readings on the research topic to be able to synthesize in a critical manner what other researchers have so far done in the area. Basically, the aim of the review is to be used as a building block for the researcher's contribution to knowledge.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
5 answers
My research is related to the dynamics of language transformation as recorded in a real life situation as opposed to an academic context.
Relevant answer
Answer
I definitely agree! I was thinking of examining a certain "event" which allows a more limited time.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
10 answers
I am interested to learn more about areas of policy which in your country, or globally don't get enough attention and are under-served in public discourse and receive little to no attention from policymakers?
Relevant answer
Answer
While in the UK, I noticed that very few issues are concentrated on. Education, National Health and taxation of the wealthier in society. My conclusion: these are traditionally fixed on as the answers do not appear to be complex-to legislators-and in different ways they concern the preservation of status and day to day issues, at least in as concrete a fashion as possible. Somehow, concentrating on these many other issues can be ignored.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
18 answers
Discourse analysis is a popular strand in policy analysis. However, analyzing narratives is something different. Can someone tell me how to articulate the difference eloquently to a well informed public?
Relevant answer
Answer
As the previous answers have suggested, there are a number of versions of both discourse analysis and narrative analysis. Since you are in political science, it seems like that the forms of discourse analysis you have encountered are most likely to be versions of Critical Discourse Analysis, where the goal is to understand how it is that social issues come to be be discussed in some terms rather than others.
In contrast, most forms of narrative analysis work with the content of individuals' story telling. As Katherine Bischoping says, you could use a discourse approach to analyze narratives, and I assume you could also collect narratives to examine the content of discourse.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
6 answers
Hello all,
I am data mining Wikipedia to discern which titles are edited in the most countries by geolocating edits performed with IP addresses. I am only interested in the top 100 titles edited in the most countries. I am arguing that these titles represent global ideas because their edits are the most spatially widespread. With these counts, I can then measure per country how many of these global titles are edited in that particular country. This can then be used to create a type of globalization index per country (e.g. Germany edited 95 of the titles edited in the most countries). I eventually would like to do a correlation of this index with a well established globalization index that relies on counting objects crossing borders (e.g., import/export). My argument is that the higher the connectivity of a country, the higher the globalized title index. I am only interested in the subject matter and discourses in the top 100 titles, so I need my same to be manageable.
My question is regarding the normalization of data. The number of individual editing IP's do effect the number of titles edited per country. However, this is not a normal per capita situation, for example a murder rate is all murders/population. In my case, I am arbitrarily selecting only the top one hundred titles on a list of titles per number of countries in which they are edited. It would be analogous to setting a murder rate per capita to the 100 most gruesome murders/population. A title that might be 101st in rank on the list could still be considered global is this aspect, but it just didn't make it to the top 100. So, I am uneasy about normalizing the data.
What would be the best way to normalize/standardize this data by number of individual editing IP's within Wikipedia per country given the situation that the numerator is an arbitrarily delimited group of a phenomenon?
Your help is greatly appreciated, Tom
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
2 answers
From role-playing games studies to proposals for decolonized ethnographic methods, it seems that the idea of sharing narrative authority is often presented as a key component in addressing power inequalities in contexts where worlds are being built and/or expressed in discourse. But what is narrative authority, exactly? How would you define various "degrees" of sharing it? Is it a clear indicator of agency? Your thoughts will be greatly appreciated.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you very much for the reference. I'll make sure to get that text.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
5 answers
No scientific research is devoid of values and values play a definite role in scientific inquiry. As humans, our research is guided by values from beginning to end .i. e., from identification of problem to conclusions and prediction level.
Value judgments cannot be completely withdrawn from scientific discourse. Values have a certain place and 'an attitude of moral indifference has no connection with scientific inquiry'.
Though critical self-reflection is very important while carrying out the research, an 'over-fixation' with it can be counter productive. The basic assumption is that at what level values can be productive in scientific inquiry.
Relevant answer
Answer
Value judgments reside in the researcher‘s mind from study conception to years after study conclusion.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
13 answers
I'm looking at the discourses that hinder or enable their inclusion in higher education.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you as well Lydia. Yes, integration is indeed difficult especially for multicultural countries. However, inclusion as a human right needs to find a compromise with cultural preservation, another human right.
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
2 answers
The image of the child and early childhood from the perspective and the discourse of parents, educators
Relevant answer
Answer
Your question is not clear to me but a must read on childhood is:
Trevarthen, C. (1995) `The child's need to learn a culture' Children & Society; 9(1): 5-19
Trevarthen pioneered work on intersubjectivity during 40 years studyung pre-schoolers. Maybe:
Trevarthen, C. (1979) `Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A description of primary intersubjectivity' in M. Bullowa, ed. Before Speech (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Trevarthen, C., Hubley, P. (1978) `Secondary intersubjectivity: Confidence, confiders, and acts of meaning in the first year' in A. Lock, ed. Before Speech: The Beginning of Interpersonal Communication (London: Academic Press)
  • asked a question related to Discourse
Question
3 answers
website discourse
Relevant answer