哪些差距?-什么桥?

IF 1.2 3区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
A. Okros, Rebecca J. Jensen
{"title":"哪些差距?-什么桥?","authors":"A. Okros, Rebecca J. Jensen","doi":"10.1177/0095327X211035820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The discourse around the bridging the gap debate is seen to a unique sub-set of the social sciences in the United States as applied to a unique American approach to security. This article looks beyond US National Security and the practices of the discipline of political science at US universities to address, and expand on, some specific ideas in Michael Desch’s volume The Cult of the Irrelevant. We offer that an integrative assessment of how scholarly work can best inform security policies and practices requires more critical examination in four domains: consideration of how different disciplines frame key issues and speak to each other; understanding the dynamics of the policy marketplace; assessments to alternate ways to frame security and national security; and requirements to critical challenge the privilege academics have awarded themselves as the purveyors (and gatekeepers) of ‘knowledge’ and the ‘truth’.","PeriodicalId":47332,"journal":{"name":"Armed Forces & Society","volume":"59 1","pages":"26 - 40"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Which Gap? – What Bridge?\",\"authors\":\"A. Okros, Rebecca J. Jensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0095327X211035820\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The discourse around the bridging the gap debate is seen to a unique sub-set of the social sciences in the United States as applied to a unique American approach to security. This article looks beyond US National Security and the practices of the discipline of political science at US universities to address, and expand on, some specific ideas in Michael Desch’s volume The Cult of the Irrelevant. We offer that an integrative assessment of how scholarly work can best inform security policies and practices requires more critical examination in four domains: consideration of how different disciplines frame key issues and speak to each other; understanding the dynamics of the policy marketplace; assessments to alternate ways to frame security and national security; and requirements to critical challenge the privilege academics have awarded themselves as the purveyors (and gatekeepers) of ‘knowledge’ and the ‘truth’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47332,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Armed Forces & Society\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"26 - 40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Armed Forces & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X211035820\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Armed Forces & Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X211035820","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

围绕弥合差距辩论的论述被视为美国社会科学的一个独特子集,应用于美国独特的安全方法。本文超越了美国国家安全和美国大学政治学学科的实践,讨论并扩展了迈克尔·德施(Michael Desch)的《无关的崇拜》(the Cult of the Irrelevant)一书中的一些具体观点。我们认为,综合评估学术工作如何能够最好地为安全政策和实践提供信息,需要在四个领域进行更严格的检查:考虑不同学科如何构建关键问题并相互交流;了解政策市场的动态;评估构建安全和国家安全的替代方式;并且要求批判性地挑战学者授予自己的特权,即作为“知识”和“真理”的提供者(和守门人)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Which Gap? – What Bridge?
The discourse around the bridging the gap debate is seen to a unique sub-set of the social sciences in the United States as applied to a unique American approach to security. This article looks beyond US National Security and the practices of the discipline of political science at US universities to address, and expand on, some specific ideas in Michael Desch’s volume The Cult of the Irrelevant. We offer that an integrative assessment of how scholarly work can best inform security policies and practices requires more critical examination in four domains: consideration of how different disciplines frame key issues and speak to each other; understanding the dynamics of the policy marketplace; assessments to alternate ways to frame security and national security; and requirements to critical challenge the privilege academics have awarded themselves as the purveyors (and gatekeepers) of ‘knowledge’ and the ‘truth’.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
28.60%
发文量
76
期刊介绍: Armed Forces & Society: an interdisciplinary journal publishing articles on military institutions, civil-military relations, arms control and peacemaking, and conflict management. The journal is international in scope with a focus on historical, comparative, and interdisciplinary discourse. The editors and contributors include political scientists, sociologists, historians, psychologists, scholars, and economists, as well as specialists in military organization and strategy, arms control, and peacekeeping.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信