Iterative parallelism as research praxis: embracing the discursive incommensurability of scholarship and everyday politics
Iterative parallelism as research praxis: embracing the discursive incommensurability of scholarship and everyday politics
复制标题
作为研究实践的迭代并行性：拥抱学术和日常政治的话语不可通约性
作者：
Olivia R. Williams;Joseph Pierce
学术界以外对地理学作用的讨论倾向于通过修改学科的经验焦点，或通过采用更多面向公众或积极的研究方法来增强公众相关性。虽然我们对这些观点表示赞同，但我们也看到了学术研究的话语目标与其之外的日常政治世界之间的内在紧张关系：政治话语对已经存在多种意义的能指进行了富有成效的使用，并通过利用它们的模糊性来获得权力。另一方面，学术话语试图通过定义和仔细界定的术语来阐明意义，以阐明新的思想。我们认为，这些不同的话语目标的认可和赞赏，可以服务于努力，使地理奖学金更广泛的相关性，如果学者的学术贡献迭代平行于政治的，而不是试图融合两者作为一个同时的做法。在学术话语中产生和利用分析性艺术术语以更准确地描述政治过程的学术研究，可以使新的批评和对新政治可能性的想象成为可能，而这些可能性在日常政治话语中很难概念化。然而，学者进行政治干预的最有策略的方式是在现有的政治话语中提出建议。因此，每个话语中的贡献都服务于特定的、独特的目的。这两种话语也可以有效地相互发挥作用。当新的政治实践出现在日常政治领域时，新的研究项目可以有效地评估其影响，为政治干预提供进一步的建议。我们阐明了这些想法在三个原则，以指导迭代并行的学术实践感兴趣的学者，使政治影响，他们的奖学金。
Discussions of geography's role outside the academy have tended toward arguments for greater public relevance, either by revising the discipline's empirical foci, or by adopting more public-oriented or activist approaches to research. While we are sympathetic to these ideas, we see an inherent tension between the discursive goals of academic scholarship and the everyday political world beyond it. Political discourse makes productive use of signifiers for which multiple meanings already exist, and gains power by exploiting their ambiguity. Academic discourse, on the other hand, seeks to clarify meanings through definitions and carefully delimited empirics in order to elucidate new ideas. We argue that the recognition and appreciation of these divergent discursive goals can serve efforts to make geographic scholarship more widely relevant if scholars make academic contributions iteratively parallel to political ones, rather than attempting to blend the two as a simultaneous practice. Scholarship that works to produce and utilise analytical terms of art within scholarly discourses to more accurately describe political processes can enable new critiques and the imagination of new political possibilities that are difficult to conceptualise from within everyday political discourses. The most strategic way for a scholar to make a political intervention, however, is to frame the suggestion within existing political discourses. Therefore, contributions in each discourse serve specific, unique purposes. The two discourses can also usefully play off of each other. When new political practices arise in the everyday political realm, new research projects can usefully evaluate their impacts to inform further suggestions for political interventions. We elucidate these ideas in three principles to guide an academic praxis of iterative parallelism for scholars interested in making political impacts alongside their scholarship.
参与的认识论，或者说，批判的人文地理学家知道什么是有用的？
影响因子：
5
作者：
Mason K
通讯作者：
Mason K