requestId:68499aba131bd5.64396434.
Study books are not convinced
Author: Chad. Vilmon, Andrew. Pippel
Reprinter: Wu Wanwei
Source: The author authorized the Confucian website to publish. The revised draft of this article was published in the “Rebian Education Forum” No. 2, 2018
Time: Confucius was the 16th day of the Puyue month of Wuxu
Renchen
Jesus June 29, 2018
[Reprinter’s Note:The English version of this article was last published in the famous journal “Critical Exploration” in the humanities department on July 21, 2017, and on October 2, the revised version after data was released. The authors are Chad Villmon, associate professor of the Department of German in Virginia and Andrü Pippel, a professor of the Department of Language, Literature and Literature in McGill. This article focuses on assessing the dissatisfaction of academic books and other problems. The academic sponsorship system and civilized and social capital systems of late modern studies still exist in today’s research-oriented schools, and the academic world’s voice and knowledge allocation are still concentrated in a few famous brand academic circles.
I am interested in thinking that just when the translator just completed the translation of this article, I saw “American Advanced Teaching News” published two articles “The Voice of the Academic World” and “The Big Learning Is Not a Technology” criticizing this article on October 12 and 17, 2017. The author of the previous article is Maximillian Alvarez, a candidate for doctoral degree in Michigan, and the author of the following article is Len Gutkin, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard and Sam Fallon. In Alvarez’s view, although the two authors have emphasized the need to reconsider the deliberate approach of major and academic publishing as technical operation, they have not touched on the most fundamental problem of whom they were actually running. They believe that academic books have made the situation of “disagreement and disagreement” worse, and all attempts to “dispel sponsorship systems and civilized capital” in the production of academic knowledge have been eliminated. But this commentator doesn’t think so. He thinks that the severity of the “recognition standard” of a small group of famous brands is not a regrettable reaction to existing academic systems — this happens to be what the system should do under the current circumstances. As Pippel and Vilmon pointed out, the system is slight adjustment, and if the number thing is in the most basic of it is not good. This commentator believes that the hope of change should be relied on the rebels in the academic world such as the Open Humanities Press and punctum books. Because the standards and specifications of academic books are designed to strengthen our technical path-like opportunity-oriented viewing, that is, to become the leader of the personal academic territory. If the disagreement of books can make more students reward each other (or feel infected with the prize), and hope to conduct and implement academic research on different methods, this can produce greater comfort, prompting experienced students and academic newcomers to use or may (only use) open books in academic research, or designate open books as classroom reading materials or ask for open books to be professional standards. Once the academic community collectively begins to seek other, more just methods to conduct academic research and disseminate academic results, they will hope for more justice.
“Study is not a technology” believes that the key points of Vilmon and Pippel are not only the dissatisfaction of famous brands in terms of literary publication — but their destructive impact on knowledge, but the author refuses to discuss how the diversity of the organization can correct these shortcomings. Both corrective bias and improvement tasks must be met with value judgments, but numbers cannot tell us what explanation is more important, and learners cannot obtain traces from the algorithm. Not only can the algorithm not be able to rescue us from the dilemma, but it can be used by the governors, as a course evaluation standard, forcing graduates and young researchers to limit their scientific research to the limitations of new algorithms and the framework they want to see. They are not as amusing as the authors of the article, Pippel and Villmon, and people are not ready to outsource their critical imagination to robots.
These academic book problems that students care about also exist at different levels in China. People in the academic community are naturally very interested in this topic and trust that this article can bring a lot of excitement to readers. 】
Abstract:In the process of knowledge creation and dissemination at home and abroad, the main effects of academic books are undoubtedly. Based on the 5,500 articles published by four famous humanities journals over the past 45 years, the author reminds the famous academic viewing and sponsoring human system to shape the thinking space, and understands that these effects are the norms that need to be followed or problems that need to be solved. The research results show that there are significant relationships such as dissatisfaction in the humanities system. The previous academic sponsorship humanities system and civilized and social capital systems still exist in modern science. The paper also describes the history of book-based and modern research-based major learning evolutionTie. Now it is time to design the method of evaluating the impact of science from the beginning, with the diversity and new nature, creating a mediocre space for academic transportation.
Keywords: Book form, academic dissatisfaction, institutional relationship, gender, reputation, knowledge authority
In 2007, the “Higher Education Foundation” of the State Organization responsible for allocating scientific research funds to major institutions announced the national system of evaluating and comparing the quality of higher-level teaching institutions–the Excellent Framework for Scientific Research (REF). The project aims to evaluate the scientific research quality of the UK’s advanced teaching institutions, and to prepare the “Excellent Scientific Research and Discussion Indicators” for this purpose is to use it as a basis for allocating scientific research funds, to provide a research framework that can continue to develop, and to promote “equality and diversification.”1 Finally, the excellent framework of scientific research and research and quantitatively examined the results of 154 major schools in the UK from 2007 to 2013, and released the results in 2014. The foundation said that this discussion contained 191,150 “study results”–a journal articles, books and seminar collections.
Although american and Canadian majors have not been included in such national practices, many universities have begun to evaluate themselves. Several famous academics have applied data from Academic Analytics, which is the database of doctoral points and departments of 385 major academics in american and foreign countries. The academic analysis company’s final data provided to the academic books: books, articles and invocations. The company calls “observing data” a “strategic decision-making process that supports the major.” 2
For political right and left critics, the nature of data driving that has become increasingly serious this year has become increasingly similar to the authority of the tyrant organization, which has eliminated the loss of personality and particularity, and doubledInclusive of the ultimate sensory system that loves quantifiable and generalized things. 3 This evaluation system is considered to be very realistic in the timid modernity that Max Weber described as a hundred years ago. Like other modern institutions and systems, learning the current application technology skillsControl “everything that can be calculated”, so as Veber wrote, it is ensured that nothing is “secret or impossible to calculate” in principle. 4 As far as the evaluation of this year’s night school, the relative value and authority of a different student and organization will be directly linked to its “彩官网彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩� The result of the book is a specific item that can be used for calculation and comparison. Especially in the humanities and humanities and social sciences fields where quantifiable other notable accolades such as subject funds and private assistance, they have become the ultimate accolades for value in the academic world.
The outstanding framework and academic analysis company of scientific research, as the latter insists on its publicity guess, is “rooted in the academic world.” They acknowledge the authority and location of modern majors and are closely connected with the results of their book. Audio, location, fame, compliance with laws and authority are not only related to the writing and expression of words and their publication and publishing within their governance channels. Few aspects of the academic career are as standard as those of today’s booksR
發佈留言