Social, Behavioral Scientists Eligible to Apply for NSF S-STEM Grants
Solicitations are now being sought for the National Science Foundation’s Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics program, and in an unheralded […]
Britain’s recent general election has been the first step towards a long-overdue public debate on the social consequences of austerity and growing socio-economic inequality. What does this sea change mean for British academia?
In academic institutions that value hierarchies and compliance and seek to understand scholarship in terms of its economic value, argues our Daniel Nehring, there is little space for a discipline that aims to critically interrogate the intersections of structure and agency and the social production of inequalities.
Sociology today, argues our Daniek Nehring, is defined by a fundamental contradiction between its everyday labor practices and its imaginary ethos.
In the wake of the Brexit vote, our Daniel Nehring insists, academia’s arguments in favor of an open society have remained surprisingly weak.
With the increasing indications that Britain is growing colder to migrants in the wake of Brexit, Daniel Nehring asks what that means specifically for academics from the European Union in the UK.
The never-ending audit makes a crucial point about the ways in which power structures have shifted within universities, argues our Daniel Nehring. In effect, it suggests the death of the ideal of the autonomous scholar-researcher-teacher.
Public conversations about Britain’s EU membership could have involved wide-ranging discussions of British and European politics, economics and society, argues our Daniel Nehring. They did not. Instead, they were dominated by oversimplifications, stereotypes and lies.
German-born Daniel Nehring insists that the upcoming Brexit vote is founded less on reason and more on xenophobia, and argues that the toxic atmosphere surrounding the vote is already doing harm to Britain’s fabled academic enterprise.