Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.12759/HSR.46.2021.2.155-177
S. Gauch
{"title":"The Ironic Becomings of Reflexivity - The Case of Citation Theory in Bibliometrics","authors":"S. Gauch","doi":"10.12759/HSR.46.2021.2.155-177","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.46.2021.2.155-177","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47073,"journal":{"name":"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung","volume":"46 1","pages":"155-177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66514672","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.12759/HSR.46.2021.2.186-204
H. Unger
{"title":"Ethical Reflexivity as Research Practice","authors":"H. Unger","doi":"10.12759/HSR.46.2021.2.186-204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.46.2021.2.186-204","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47073,"journal":{"name":"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung","volume":"46 1","pages":"186-204"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66514734","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.12759/hsr.46.2021.2.287-312
U. Dirnagl, P. Misselwitz, L. Ruhrort, D. Simon
Due to the Corona pandemic, it was necessary to cancel the conference "Positionality Reloaded. Dimensions of Reflexivity in the Relationship of Science and Society" at short notice. At the time, in May 2020, it was quite uncertain how far-reaching the consequences of the pandemic would be. This also affected the panel discussion that we had planned in order to collect practical and application-oriented perspectives on transdisciplinarity in academics. As restrictions of traveling and gatherings on social events across the globe intensified, digital conferences gradually developed into an effective format for academic exchange. In this respect, we were thrilled when we were able to save the two-hour panel discussion "Crossing Borders, Creating Together: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue on Transdisciplinary Knowledge Production" on 15 June 2020 using a live video broadcast. The main questions from the conference served as a guide: To what extent do academic publications and knowledge production rely on reflexivity and self-reflection? What consequences does this have for the selfpositioning of researchers in the tense relationship between academia and society? The question of how meaningful academic activities are in society and for society correlates directly with the question of the relevance of transdisciplinary research, that is occasionally addressed as a possibility, a demand, a request, or even a necessity. While the other contributions in this collection primarily discuss these questions from a theoretical standpoint, the panel discussion was conceived as an "empirical counterpart." The objective was to explore and discuss the opportunities and challenges that arise in transdisciplinary research practice from different functional perspectives: such as political and mobility research, medicine, or architecture and urban planning. For this purpose, we invited four participants, whom we will introduce below.
{"title":"Crossing Borders, Creating Together: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue on Transdisciplinary Knowledge Production","authors":"U. Dirnagl, P. Misselwitz, L. Ruhrort, D. Simon","doi":"10.12759/hsr.46.2021.2.287-312","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.46.2021.2.287-312","url":null,"abstract":"Due to the Corona pandemic, it was necessary to cancel the conference \"Positionality Reloaded. Dimensions of Reflexivity in the Relationship of Science and Society\" at short notice. At the time, in May 2020, it was quite uncertain how far-reaching the consequences of the pandemic would be. This also affected the panel discussion that we had planned in order to collect practical and application-oriented perspectives on transdisciplinarity in academics. As restrictions of traveling and gatherings on social events across the globe intensified, digital conferences gradually developed into an effective format for academic exchange. In this respect, we were thrilled when we were able to save the two-hour panel discussion \"Crossing Borders, Creating Together: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue on Transdisciplinary Knowledge Production\" on 15 June 2020 using a live video broadcast. The main questions from the conference served as a guide: To what extent do academic publications and knowledge production rely on reflexivity and self-reflection? What consequences does this have for the selfpositioning of researchers in the tense relationship between academia and society? The question of how meaningful academic activities are in society and for society correlates directly with the question of the relevance of transdisciplinary research, that is occasionally addressed as a possibility, a demand, a request, or even a necessity. While the other contributions in this collection primarily discuss these questions from a theoretical standpoint, the panel discussion was conceived as an \"empirical counterpart.\" The objective was to explore and discuss the opportunities and challenges that arise in transdisciplinary research practice from different functional perspectives: such as political and mobility research, medicine, or architecture and urban planning. For this purpose, we invited four participants, whom we will introduce below.","PeriodicalId":47073,"journal":{"name":"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung","volume":"46 1","pages":"287-312"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66514815","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.12759/HSR.46.2021.1.206-229
J. Achatz, S. Selke, N. Wulf
{"title":"Adjusting Reality: The Contingency Dilemma in the Context of Popularised Practices of Digital Self-Tracking of Health Data","authors":"J. Achatz, S. Selke, N. Wulf","doi":"10.12759/HSR.46.2021.1.206-229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.46.2021.1.206-229","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47073,"journal":{"name":"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung","volume":"41 1","pages":"206-229"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66514350","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.12759/HSR.45.2020.4.309-346
G. Tiemann
In den vergangenen einhundert Jahren haben sich Geschichtswissenschaft und -publizistik ausfuhrlich mit der Karntner Volksabstimmung befasst. Kaum einer dieser Beitrage diskutiert aber das eigentliche Kernthema, die systematische Aufklarung von handlungsleitenden Interessen und Praferenzen der Wahler und Wahlergruppen. Einschlagige Spekulationen greifen stets und meist ausschlieslich eine ethno-nationale Dimension des Grenzkonflikts behauptet und aufgegriffen. Wenn das Abstimmungsgebiet zu etwa 70% von der slowenischen Volksgruppe bewohnt ist, aber etwa 60% der Wahlberechtigten fur Osterreich stimmen, wird regelmasig unterstellt, dass dieses Votum durch alle "Deutschen" und durch gerade soviele "Slowenen" wie notig getragen wird. Deutsch-nationale Beitrage danken deshalb 10.000 einsichtigen "Slowenen", jugoslawische Beitrage fragen sich, wie man 10.000 der eigenen Stimmen an die Gegenseite verlieren konnte. Dieser Beitrag zur historischen Wahlforschung versucht besser zu bestimmen, welche Anteile der beiden linguistischen Gruppen jeweils fur den Anschluss an Osterreich gestimmt haben. Immer wenn individuelle Umfragedaten nicht (mehr) vorliegen oder systematisch verzerrt sind, kann die Wissenschaft auf moderne Methoden der Aggregatdatenanalyse zuruckgreifen. Verfahren zur "okologischen Inferenz" verbinden deterministische Ober- und Untergrenzen mit stochastischen Schatzverfahren. Mit den demografischen Daten und Referendumsresultaten aus 51 Abstimmungsgemeinden zeigt die Analyse, dass nur knapp mehr als 75 Prozent der "Deutschen" und tatsachlich eine knappe Mehrheit von 51 Prozent der "Slowenen" fur Osterreich votierten. Bisherige Befunde haben deshalb die Anzahl der Osterreich-Befurworter bei deutschen Muttersprachlern uber- und bei slowenischen Muttersprachlern unterschatzt. Beitrage der deutsch-nationalen Geschichtsschreibung sollten deshalb nicht nur 10,000, sondern knapp 13.000 "Slowenen" fur die Unterstutzung der osterreichischen Option danken. Zudem relativieren diese Befunde deutlich den ethno-linguistischen Charakter des Karntner Referendums: Die jeweilige Umgangssprache wirkte sicher auf das Wahlverhalten beim Referendum. Ihr Einfluss wird jedoch maslos uberschatzt. Vielmehr waren es wohl die okonomischen Interessen slowenisch-sprachiger Bauern und der Einfluss der organisierten Sozialdemokratie, die das Karntner Abstimmungsgebiet als Teil Osterreichs erhalten haben.
{"title":"“Kärnten”=Austria, “Koroška”=Yugoslavia? Some RevisionistPerspectives on the 1920 Carinthian Plebiscite","authors":"G. Tiemann","doi":"10.12759/HSR.45.2020.4.309-346","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.45.2020.4.309-346","url":null,"abstract":"In den vergangenen einhundert Jahren haben sich Geschichtswissenschaft und -publizistik ausfuhrlich mit der Karntner Volksabstimmung befasst. Kaum einer dieser Beitrage diskutiert aber das eigentliche Kernthema, die systematische Aufklarung von handlungsleitenden Interessen und Praferenzen der Wahler und Wahlergruppen. Einschlagige Spekulationen greifen stets und meist ausschlieslich eine ethno-nationale Dimension des Grenzkonflikts behauptet und aufgegriffen. Wenn das Abstimmungsgebiet zu etwa 70% von der slowenischen Volksgruppe bewohnt ist, aber etwa 60% der Wahlberechtigten fur Osterreich stimmen, wird regelmasig unterstellt, dass dieses Votum durch alle \"Deutschen\" und durch gerade soviele \"Slowenen\" wie notig getragen wird. Deutsch-nationale Beitrage danken deshalb 10.000 einsichtigen \"Slowenen\", jugoslawische Beitrage fragen sich, wie man 10.000 der eigenen Stimmen an die Gegenseite verlieren konnte. \u0000Dieser Beitrag zur historischen Wahlforschung versucht besser zu bestimmen, welche Anteile der beiden linguistischen Gruppen jeweils fur den Anschluss an Osterreich gestimmt haben. Immer wenn individuelle Umfragedaten nicht (mehr) vorliegen oder systematisch verzerrt sind, kann die Wissenschaft auf moderne Methoden der Aggregatdatenanalyse zuruckgreifen. Verfahren zur \"okologischen Inferenz\" verbinden deterministische Ober- und Untergrenzen mit stochastischen Schatzverfahren. Mit den demografischen Daten und Referendumsresultaten aus 51 Abstimmungsgemeinden zeigt die Analyse, dass nur knapp mehr als 75 Prozent der \"Deutschen\" und tatsachlich eine knappe Mehrheit von 51 Prozent der \"Slowenen\" fur Osterreich votierten. Bisherige Befunde haben deshalb die Anzahl der Osterreich-Befurworter bei deutschen Muttersprachlern uber- und bei slowenischen Muttersprachlern unterschatzt. Beitrage der deutsch-nationalen Geschichtsschreibung sollten deshalb nicht nur 10,000, sondern knapp 13.000 \"Slowenen\" fur die Unterstutzung der osterreichischen Option danken. \u0000Zudem relativieren diese Befunde deutlich den ethno-linguistischen Charakter des Karntner Referendums: Die jeweilige Umgangssprache wirkte sicher auf das Wahlverhalten beim Referendum. Ihr Einfluss wird jedoch maslos uberschatzt. Vielmehr waren es wohl die okonomischen Interessen slowenisch-sprachiger Bauern und der Einfluss der organisierten Sozialdemokratie, die das Karntner Abstimmungsgebiet als Teil Osterreichs erhalten haben.","PeriodicalId":47073,"journal":{"name":"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung","volume":"45 1","pages":"309-346"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48371395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.12759/HSR.45.2020.3.161-183
L. Huckfield
{"title":"The mythology of the Social Impact Bond: a critical assessment from a concerned observer","authors":"L. Huckfield","doi":"10.12759/HSR.45.2020.3.161-183","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.45.2020.3.161-183","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47073,"journal":{"name":"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung","volume":"45 1","pages":"161-184"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44805957","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-01DOI: 10.12759/HSR.45.2020.3.74-94
Serena Natile
Financial technology or fintech initiatives are gaining increasing global attention as instruments for financial inclusion and economic and social development. Among such initiatives, mobile-phone-enabled money transfer systems, or “mobile money”, have been particularly acclaimed for facilitating access to financial services and creating opportunities for the so-called “unbanked poor”. One of the first and most-discussed mobile money projects to date is M-Pesa in Kenya, a digital payment system which is now used by over 70 per cent of the Kenyan population across a variety of sectors including finance, commerce, education, health, and social welfare. M-Pesa is premised on a narrative of social entrepreneurship and has increasingly embraced the idea of philanthrocapitalism, promoting the logic that digital financial inclusion can simultaneously address social problems and produce profit. This paper brings together socio-legal enquiry and international political economy analysis to illustrate the institutional arrangements underpinning the development of M-Pesa and examine some of the projects built on its infrastructure. It argues that social entrepreneurship promotes a logic of opportunity rather than a politics of redistribution, favouring mobile money providers and the institutions involved in the mobile money social business over improving the lives of the intended beneficiaries, namely the unbanked poor.
{"title":"Digital Finance Inclusion and the Mobile Money \"Social\" Enterprise: A Socio-Legal Critique of M-Pesa in Kenya","authors":"Serena Natile","doi":"10.12759/HSR.45.2020.3.74-94","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.45.2020.3.74-94","url":null,"abstract":"Financial technology or fintech initiatives are gaining increasing global attention as instruments for financial inclusion and economic and social development. Among such initiatives, mobile-phone-enabled money transfer systems, or “mobile money”, have been particularly acclaimed for facilitating access to financial services and creating opportunities for the so-called “unbanked poor”. One of the first and most-discussed mobile money projects to date is M-Pesa in Kenya, a digital payment system which is now used by over 70 per cent of the Kenyan population across a variety of sectors including finance, commerce, education, health, and social welfare. M-Pesa is premised on a narrative of social entrepreneurship and has increasingly embraced the idea of philanthrocapitalism, promoting the logic that digital financial inclusion can simultaneously address social problems and produce profit. This paper brings together socio-legal enquiry and international political economy analysis to illustrate the institutional arrangements underpinning the development of M-Pesa and examine some of the projects built on its infrastructure. It argues that social entrepreneurship promotes a logic of opportunity rather than a politics of redistribution, favouring mobile money providers and the institutions involved in the mobile money social business over improving the lives of the intended beneficiaries, namely the unbanked poor.","PeriodicalId":47073,"journal":{"name":"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung","volume":"45 1","pages":"74-94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47662253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-25DOI: 10.12759/HSR.29.2004.3.82-103
James Beattie
This article investigates popular and elite conceptions of science and religion in an early twentieth-century European settler society. It uses the case-study of rainmaking experiments and prayers in North Otago, New Zealand, in 1907, to challenge two dominant paradigms about New Zealand society: first, that scientific rationalism was automatically antipathetic to religion and, second, that by the early twentieth century scientific ideas were secularizing New Zealand society. North Otago's residents viewed prayer and experiment as complementary activities designed to meet the same ends; there was no distinctive, hermetically sealed division between the secular and the profane. Rainmaking also offers a fascinating way of exploring contested notions of science. While local residents enthusiastically embraced the use of explosives to bring rain, meteorologists decried these measures as unscientific and amateurish, thereby attempting to increase the legitimacy of their own profession. The reaction to North Otago's rainmaking prayers and experiments differed considerably from that of other societies such as in England and Australia in which similar prayers and experiments were undertaken. These differences reflected the special social and cultural characteristics of each country and, in New Zealand's case, its greater religious tolerance and social opportunities.
{"title":"Rethinking Science, Religion and Nature in Environmental History: Drought in Early Twentieth-Century New Zealand","authors":"James Beattie","doi":"10.12759/HSR.29.2004.3.82-103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.29.2004.3.82-103","url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates popular and elite conceptions of science and religion in an early twentieth-century European settler society. It uses the case-study of rainmaking experiments and prayers in North Otago, New Zealand, in 1907, to challenge two dominant paradigms about New Zealand society: first, that scientific rationalism was automatically antipathetic to religion and, second, that by the early twentieth century scientific ideas were secularizing New Zealand society. North Otago's residents viewed prayer and experiment as complementary activities designed to meet the same ends; there was no distinctive, hermetically sealed division between the secular and the profane. Rainmaking also offers a fascinating way of exploring contested notions of science. While local residents enthusiastically embraced the use of explosives to bring rain, meteorologists decried these measures as unscientific and amateurish, thereby attempting to increase the legitimacy of their own profession. The reaction to North Otago's rainmaking prayers and experiments differed considerably from that of other societies such as in England and Australia in which similar prayers and experiments were undertaken. These differences reflected the special social and cultural characteristics of each country and, in New Zealand's case, its greater religious tolerance and social opportunities.","PeriodicalId":47073,"journal":{"name":"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung","volume":"29 1","pages":"82-103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44872907","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：