We analyze a series of interviews with Estonian humanities researchers to explore topics related to the beginning of academic careers and the relationships with supervisors and mentors. We show how researchers strive to have meaningful relationships and produce what they consider quality research in the conditions of a system that is very strongly oriented towards internationalization and project-based funding, where their efforts are compromised by a lack of policies helping them establish a stable position in academia. Leaving researchers to face these obstacles alone places a great burden on them and may lead to a loss of talent in academia. Identifying and addressing these issues is thus important for both the well-being of early career researchers and the future of academia.
The article presents an analysis of the majority and minority opinions from the Supreme Court of the United States issued onDistrict of Columbia v. Hellerin 2008. The court case addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution that establishes gun rights in a famously confusing wording. The analysis applies parts of Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2011, 2012) model of analysing argumentation and also discusses intertextuality to account for how the justices construct their arguments. The analysis shows how the justices shape their arguments on the basis of their values and beliefs, presenting contradictory readings of the amendment, sources of evidence and the preferred application of the amendment.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was written over two centuries ago, but it is yet to find a definitive interpretation. The current article aims to explore its history by investigating how it has been recontextualised in Supreme Court precedents. A related aim is to underline the historically contingent nature of discourse through focusing on the phenomenon of recontextualisation. The media representation of the three Supreme Court precedents that have dealt with the amendment, United States v. Miller, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, is analysed. Media texts were collected from The New York Times between 2007 and 2011. The analysis looks at two articles from that period and includes the single article on the 1939 Miller decision. The results illustrate how the amendment has acquired new meanings by moving from one context to another and, thus, given rise to new texts and discourses.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.