Prometheus (Italy)最新文献

{"title":"Prestige auditing and the market for academic esteem: a framework and an appeal","authors":"J. Elliott","doi":"10.1080/08109028.2017.1366018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2017.1366018","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Much has been written about the remarkable rise of global university rankings from their initial appearance in the Academic Ranking of World Universities (Shanghai) tables in 2003. The examination of all things rankings, however, has arguably outpaced its conceptual uptake. This paper addresses this imbalance by reviewing prestige audits as resource management tools and status allocation measures. The paper argues that audit ambition has courted audit failure in both dimensions. The resource management justification underestimates the challenge of devising reliable proxy variables across international higher education sectors, organizational types, and disciplinary/departmental objectives. Evidential data sets are duly recast as data narratives that compete with each other and cloud the ordinal clarity aspired to in ranking tables. The status competition approach generates Matthew effects and encourages factor gaming. Positional goods investments are also socially and economically wasteful. In either strict (rigid) or relaxed (normed) form, finally, their zero-sum logic fails to account for private and public externalities. The paper closes with an appeal to soft-variable evaluations in higher education contexts as well as to closer scrutiny of the vocabulary informing both quantitative and qualitative assessments.","PeriodicalId":38494,"journal":{"name":"Prometheus (Italy)","volume":"21 1","pages":"57 - 73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90935152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Seneca, Epist. 95.12","authors":"G. Zago","doi":"10.14601/PROMETHEUS-21229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14601/PROMETHEUS-21229","url":null,"abstract":"An emendation on Sen. epist . 95.12 is suggested: instead of the transmitted omnium read omnis .","PeriodicalId":38494,"journal":{"name":"Prometheus (Italy)","volume":"69 1","pages":"143-144"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78094065","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Su due frammenti tragici di autore incerto: Diogene di Sinope o Euripide?","authors":"F. Lupi","doi":"10.14601/PROMETHEUS-21221","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14601/PROMETHEUS-21221","url":null,"abstract":"The paper deals with the disputed authorship of two iambic fragments, frr. trag. adesp. 284, 394 N. 2 = Diog. Sin. frr. dub. 4-5 Sn.-K. On account of lexical, stylistic, and content affinities especially, the attribution to Euripides’ Telephus , among other Euripidean fragmentary dramas, is proposed.","PeriodicalId":38494,"journal":{"name":"Prometheus (Italy)","volume":"2 4","pages":"67-86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72594387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Due note sul testo e la fortuna di Orazio ( Epist. 1.1.106-108; Carm. 1.12.49-52; Auson. Caes. 1-2)","authors":"G. Zago","doi":"10.14601/prometheus-21225","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14601/prometheus-21225","url":null,"abstract":"In the first part of this article a conjecture on the text of Hor. epist . 1.1.106 is suggested (in­stead of the transmitted uno read nihilo ); in the second part, an unnoticed echo of Horace ( carm . 1.12.49-52) in Ausonius ( Caes . 1-2) is detected.","PeriodicalId":38494,"journal":{"name":"Prometheus (Italy)","volume":"25 1","pages":"112-114"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74926438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Innovating: a doer’s manifesto","authors":"B. Douthwaite","doi":"10.1080/08109028.2017.1377995","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2017.1377995","url":null,"abstract":"‘At its genesis, no thing about an innovation is new’. This is Luis Perez-Breva’s opening sentence. His book makes and explores a number of other thought-provoking assertions about innovation. Two that resonate with me are that the language and mental models we use to describe innovation mislead the aspiring innovator to expect to begin with a breakthrough solution to a problem; and, that while much has been written about managing innovation once the solution to the problem is evident, little has been written to guide someone to innovation from no more than a hunch. Stuart Macdonald, the editor of this journal, seemed to be agreeing that little has been written in this area when he invited me to review this book. I had written a similar, but relatively unknown book, 15 years ago (Douthwaite, 2002). In it, I develop a model to guide grassroots innovation processes based on my experience developing rice harvesting and drying equipment in the Philippines and Vietnam. The model is tested and further developed on wind turbines, Linux software and local money systems. It begins with a bright idea that is prototyped and co-developed in a collaboration between an R&D team and the key stakeholders who will reproduce and use the innovation. Like the process laid out in Perez-Breva’s book, innovation happens as a result of repeated experiential learning cycles involving the innovators and the key stakeholders in which the innovation evolves and becomes fitter. Perez-Breva’s book made me realize that my model was weak on arguably the most important part of the process – coming up with the bright idea in the first place and developing it into something tangible with which the innovator can start to engage key stakeholders. The author explains that the reason we overlook the genesis of the innovation process is that our understanding of innovation comes from after-the-fact accounts of successful innovation processes. In all these accounts, the innovation and the problem it solves are clear, and because we know the end of the story, the steps along the way seem obvious, almost inevitable. Another reason we expect a linear narrative is that humans are hardwired to see the world as more ordered and predictable than it actually is (Kahneman, 2011). This, apparently, is adaptive, because if we were more realistic about how the world actually is, we would not risk getting up in the morning! But this ‘hindsight’ thinking, as Perez-Breva calls it, is misleading. Looking forward, at the beginning of a putative innovation process, nothing is clear. There will be many wrong turns before the form of the problem and solution become clear to key stakeholders, the ‘community’ as Perez-Breva calls them. Hindsight thinking carries two risks: on the one hand there is paralysis, an inability to start in the absence of perfect clarity about the bright idea; and, on the other hand, over-commitment to the prototype solution ending in costly failure. All you need to start, according","PeriodicalId":38494,"journal":{"name":"Prometheus (Italy)","volume":"14 1","pages":"264 - 266"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76523802","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Data sharing in low-resourced research environments","authors":"B. Rappert, L. Bezuidenhout","doi":"10.1080/08109028.2017.1325142","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2017.1325142","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract ‘Open data’ has recently emerged as a label for renewed attempts to promote scientific exchange. As part of such efforts, the posting of data online is often portrayed as commonly beneficial: individual scientists accrue greater prominence while at the same time fostering communal knowledge. Yet, how scientists in non-Western research settings assess such calls for openness has been the subject of little empirical study. Based on extended fieldwork with biochemistry laboratories in sub-Sahara Africa, this paper examines a variety of reasons why scientists opt for closure over openness with regard to their own data. We argue that the heterogeneity of research environments calls into question many of the presumptions made as part of open data. Inequalities in research environments can mean that moves towards sharing create binds and dilemmas. These observations suggest that those promoting openness must critically examine current research governance and funding systems that continue to perpetuate disparities. The paper proposes an innovative approach to facilitating openness: coupling the sharing of data with enabling scientists to redress their day-to-day research environment demands. Such a starting basis provides an alternative but vital link between the aspirations for science aired today as part of international discussions and the daily challenges of undertaking research in low-resourced environments.","PeriodicalId":38494,"journal":{"name":"Prometheus (Italy)","volume":"8 1","pages":"207 - 224"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73354424","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The challenge of film to innovation and entrepreneurship studies","authors":"M. Wood, S. Glisovic, L. Berkeley","doi":"10.1080/08109028.2017.1336011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2017.1336011","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This commentary supplements the work of a creative practice research project that generates new ways of thinking about innovation and entrepreneurial processes. Our creative method, underwritten by the logic of sensation and presented in film format, operates as an alternative form of research in these fields, where results are normally conveyed in book or journal paper. Film-based research has developed distinctive qualitative, empirical and theoretical vocabularies that can expand the nature and range of evidence, argument and expression across the broad range of innovation and entrepreneurship studies. 600 Mills, the film that accompanies this paper, is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2017.1336011.","PeriodicalId":38494,"journal":{"name":"Prometheus (Italy)","volume":"61 1","pages":"225 - 230"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82025891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Between innovation and industrial policy: how Washington succeeds and fails at renewable energy","authors":"R. MacNeil","doi":"10.1080/08109028.2017.1323746","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2017.1323746","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract During its eight years in office, the Obama administration undertook an ambitious effort to transition the US economy towards the use of renewable energy technologies, and promote American leads in the global ‘cleantech’ industry. While many of the strategies selected to achieve these goals rendered positive results, others proved unproductive and/or politically toxic. Approaching the issue from a critical innovation framework (which focuses on the political and economic conditions under which the federal government is best able to promote technological change), this paper argues that the administration ignored some of the key conditions that have historically allowed Washington to succeed in promoting the uptake of new technologies. The paper describes the nature of these mistakes, and suggests an alternative way forward based on historical precedent.","PeriodicalId":38494,"journal":{"name":"Prometheus (Italy)","volume":"3 1","pages":"173 - 189"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89533506","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The econocracy: the perils of leaving economics to the experts","authors":"J. Earle, Cahal Moran","doi":"10.1080/08109028.2017.1339523","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2017.1339523","url":null,"abstract":"In The Econocracy: The Perils of Leaving Economics to the Experts , Joe Earle, Cahal Moran and Zach Ward-Perkins argue that the logic of economics has come to shape how political issues are framed and addressed, leading to a deep divide between economics ‘experts’ and the majority of citizens who have grown increasingly suspicious of the discipline. This concise and well-researched book is a timely critique of the state of economics today and may empower ‘citizen economists’ to become part of the debate, writes Maxine Montaigne. (A blog for us by The Econocracy authors is also available here.)","PeriodicalId":38494,"journal":{"name":"Prometheus (Italy)","volume":"19 1","pages":"231 - 249"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88695003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Public debate in Russia: matters of disorder","authors":"N. Holden","doi":"10.1080/08109028.2017.1339525","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2017.1339525","url":null,"abstract":"When I accepted the request to review this book, I was intrigued by the title, but had not the slightest inkling of what awaited me. In the event, I found the scope and contents not only intriguing, but also – Russia being Russia – singularly perturbing. The volume contains 13 chapters written by a medley of linguists, sociologists, anthropologists, historians and literary scholars attached to universities in Russia, France, Israel and the UK. The chapters range over wide domains of Russian linguistic history and experience: the specification of totalitarian language, letters to the editor at the beginning of Soviet times, the rhetoric of socialist meetings, legal language in the nineteenth century, so-called public aphasia, the past and future of Russian public language, and satirical discourse. At one moment we are reading about the famous correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and Prince Kurbsky; then we are learning about Catherine the Great’s attempts to produce a law code on the basis of consensus and appropriate forms of discussion; before long, we are with Lenin at the second congress of the League of Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad in London in 1903; elsewhere we are treated to an unravelling of therapeutic discourse on contemporary Russian television; and then, we find ourselves observing the general meeting of an allotment association in St Petersburg – grassroots democracy indeed. The entire vast sweep of subject matter confronts what the editors, Vakhtin and Firsov, call ‘a chronic, and neglected, socio-cultural malady’, a grim legacy of the period of so-called ‘mature socialism’ introduced under Brezhnev in 1981. It is worth citing in full their description of this malady:","PeriodicalId":38494,"journal":{"name":"Prometheus (Italy)","volume":"1 1","pages":"251 - 254"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75723189","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}