Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
Policy & Politics, 2011
Rewriting the history of the early republic Certain kinds of historical writing alter our understanding not only of people, places, and events but also of nations and eras. Sometimes historians introduce new evidence that highlights anomalies in existing explanatory schemes. And sometimes they provide perspective on issues of present-day concern. The emergence in the 1990s of a "new" institutionalism in historical writing on the early American republic did (and continues to do) both. It built on the realization by a small cohort of mostly younger historians that the regnant social and cultural paradigm that had dominated history departments since the 1960s had become unduly confining—a relic, as it were, of a very different age. This shift in historical thinking was energized by a desire to make the history of the United States comprehensible for a generation for whom the passions of the 1960s had been supplanted by a new constellation of concerns. The media, public finance, and the military are but three of many topics that, though of obvious contemporary relevance, were largely ignored by historians of the early republic until quite recently. In turning to such topics, the new-institutional historians have sought to write a history of early America that is more realistic, less sentimental, and more open to international comparisons than the history they remember learning in school or encountered in most of the textbooks taught in introductory college survey courses. These new institutionalists, many of whom now occupy prominent places in the historical profession, are respectful of the enormous body of fine scholarship on social and cultural topics that is the most enduring legacy of their immediate forbears. Yet they quarrel with this scholarship in at least two ways. Their first quarrel concerns their disinclination to characterize the early republic as precapitalistic and stateless. The anomalies in the historical record are simply too great: to envision the early republic as precapitalistic simply does not square with what we now know about the slave trade and land speculation, to name but two of the many inconvenient truths that historians of this period often neglect. And to deny the existence of the early American state—or even to characterize it as "innocuous" or "weak"—trivializes the existence of congeries of federal government institutions in realms as different as banking, communications, and what we today would call intellectual property. Contingency is in; inexorability is out. The second problem with the received wisdom is more of a matter of temperament. To be blunt, new institutionalists have grown impatient with the often-precious text parsing that has come to pass for serious historical analysis among more than a few historians who claim to have taken the linguistic turn. The new institutionalists are more interested in how things worked than in what people believed and are skeptical of historical writing that ignores huge swatches of social reality in a quixotic quest for the authentic and the pure. An old institutionalism flourished in history departments for several decades before the Second World War. Its practitioners treated institutions as more-or-less stable entities with venerable pedigrees and wrote learned and often perceptive books and articles on particular businesses, government agencies, and cultural institutions. The new institutionalism, in contrast, treats institutions as bundles of rules that are constantly evolving and that interact with social and cultural processes in unpredictable and sometimes idiosyncratic ways. Contingency is in; inexorability is out. Old institutionalists searched for origins, which they referred to as "germs"; new institutionalists track outcomes, which they conceive of as "legacies."
Division of Palawan, 2020
This module was designed and written with you in mind. It is here to help you master the Scope and Delimitation and Benefits and Beneficiaries of Research. The scope of this module permits it to be used in many different learning situations. The language used recognizes the diverse vocabulary level of students. The lessons are arranged to follow the standard sequence of the course. But the order in which you read them can be changed to correspond with the textbook you are now using. The module is divided into Two (2) lessons, namely: Lesson 1- Scope and Delimitation of research Lesson 2- Benefits and Beneficiaries of research After going through this module, you are expected to: a. define scope and delimitation of research; b. appreciate the scope, limitation and delimitation; and, c. write the benefits and beneficiaries of research.
Revue d'économie industrielle, 1992
Institutions: a promising topic insufficiently clarified, 2022
The basic question of sociology is what sets of rules and order are used in society and how they are maintained. One possible answer is based on the concept of institutions, which still provokes theoretical discussions due to, among other things, a certain ambiguity, since the term 'institution' is, figuratively speaking, shrouded in a kind of fog that prevents it from being captured in any direct, clear way. Today, ambitions of philosophy, political science, anthropology or mathematical game theory, which try to solve this problem outside the sociological framework, contribute to the deepening of the ambiguities surrounding the concept of institutions. Some approaches tend to define institutions as a cyber black box with inputs and outputs, whose working remains largely hidden (especially philosophical and mathematical approaches strive to find some common universal principle or even mathematical formula). From the perspective of general sociological theory, the article considers the topic of institutions. The author identifies this topic as a central issue that needs to be reconsidered in sociology. The starting point of the article is the analysis of concepts related to the topic, their definitions and paradigmatic integration. In the following part, the author considers the theoretical interpretations in the works of Peter Berger, Thomas Luckmann, John Searle, and the concepts inspired by game theories and rational behaviour theories. After that, ten basic issues of the current approaches are identified. The author pays particular attention to the fact that methodological individualism tends to dominate, which explains the ignorance of certain issues, especially of a holistic and macro-social nature, thus, leading to some problematic simplifications. The article shows what needs to be changed in the current social-scientific thinking on institutions in order to develop a more appropriate starting point for the further development of sociological theory.
Produtos Educacionais do Mestrado Profissional em Astronomia: Paradidáticos I, 2024
¿Qué es la buena fe en los hechos? Un enfoque doctrinario, normativo y jurisprudencial sobre la aplicación de la buena fe en el Derecho Civil, 2021
Human review, 2023
Cambridge Theological Federation, 2003
Intelligence and National Security, 2012
Études et Travaux 35, p. 75-102, 2022
2017 IEEE Holm Conference on Electrical Contacts, 2017
Pharmaceutical Sciences
En Nava Morales, Elena; Gitahy de Figueiredo, Guilerme y Almeida Vaz Filho, Florencio (Compiladores). Indigenizando los medios de comunicación. Redes interculturales y comunicación indígena en América Latina. México D.F.: Ediciones Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.. , 2024
International Journal of Nuclear Hydrogen Production and Applications, 2011
Discreet: Journal Didache of Christian Education
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2005
Scientific Investigations Report, 2022
Environment, Development and Sustainability