{"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)。
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’.
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.