2004
DOI: 10.2307/1344367
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Critical Disciplinarity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This might not have been a problem if it were not for the fact that it creates problems for accomplishing the general agenda they agree upon, which is to take the multimediality into account in the analysis of human expressions. But instead of making another discipline of multimedia documents like the new media studies, it might be useful to follow the advice by Chandler (2004, p. 359): “[…] to rearticulate the disciplinary system after three decades of ‘add‐on’ fields and programs.”…”
Section: A Complementary Document Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This might not have been a problem if it were not for the fact that it creates problems for accomplishing the general agenda they agree upon, which is to take the multimediality into account in the analysis of human expressions. But instead of making another discipline of multimedia documents like the new media studies, it might be useful to follow the advice by Chandler (2004, p. 359): “[…] to rearticulate the disciplinary system after three decades of ‘add‐on’ fields and programs.”…”
Section: A Complementary Document Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…mainly address typical questions for the discipline and answer them with theories and methods from the discipline, with limited dependence on other disciplines. Scientific disciplines can be seen as specific types of discourses (Chandler, 2003) which discipline knowledge through procedures of exclusion. These strictly regulate who are allowed to be a knowledge producer, allowed methods of knowledge production and what criteria the product must agree with to be credited as scientific knowledge.…”
Section: Scientific Knowledge Production and Organisationcognitive And Institutional Viewsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If Biglan’s taxonomy favors the paradigm‐skeptic Menand over the paradigm‐seeking Harpham, it also suggests that disciplines are dynamic and relational entities, whose identities draw on their place in a larger, and always changing, institutional structure. The picture that emerges bears comparison to what James Chandler calls “critical disciplinarity:”“the totality of the disciplines at any given time should be articulated not as a set of territories, or even as a set of parallel functions, or box of tools, but as a network of relatively autonomous practices in asymmetrical relation to each other” (Chandler 360, Klein 2004, 2005). Imagined as just such a network of practices made meaningful within a changing, social institution of learning and knowledge, the humanities come to look more like the heirs of the Renaissance studia humanitatis than the outposts of a twentieth‐century anthropocentrism, more like a discipline than a doctrine, and more, I suggest, like the work that we in the humanities actually do 15…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%