Search

nextGEN, a listserv and advocacy collective founded and maintained by graduate students across the international field of writing studies, 1 kairotically begun in response to controversial interactions on the WPA-Listserv in March 2018 (Laughner, 2019; “Where We Are,” 2020; Beare, 2021). Following the release of Vershawn Ashanti Young's 2019 CCCC Call for Papers, the backlash on WPA-L discussed, and in many ways perpetuated, the on-going racialized, linguistic discrimination within writing studies, writ large. As graduate students contributed to these conversations, this situation clearly illustrated their systemic dismissal from disciplinary conversations. In this white paper, we highlight four tactical strategies used by nextGEN since its inception to demonstrate the importance of coalitional literacies in digital advocacy spaces. Finally, we conclude by briefly looking forward to future challenges and possibilities for the next generation of nextGEN. Overall, we offer this argument as a “white paper” because it is our–the authors–understanding and situating of the systemic problems that defined the emergence and early work of nextGEN. 2 We offer readers a specific history, scholarly framework, and model for building and sustaining an international listserv and advocacy space for and by graduate students through coalitional literacies of digital safety and solidarity.

This short position paper argues that new semiotically-anchored approaches to multimodality offer much for other disciplines now engaging with multimodality. In particular, the account of multimodality introduced is argued to position current discussions of the potential role of multimodality in argumentation studies more effectively, untangling several problematic distinctions drawn previously. Questions concerning the existence of visual argumentation, the necessity of propositionality, and the nature of argumentation are reconstructed from an inherently multimodal perspective.

There have been ongoing debates as to how, or even whether, we should clinically classify gender diversity in children through clinical classification manuals. So-called 'depathologizing' is argued as being vital to address the stigma that these children are somehow disordered or sick. Yet one argument in favour of continued clinical classification for transgender and gender non-conforming children is that it better facilitates access to specialist psychological support. I argue that whilst continued clinical classification offers a seemingly pragmatic solution to ensuring access, it does in fact obscure our understanding of the individual needs of these children. In this paper I address fundamental issues that aim to better our understanding of need and thus why a child may benefit from specialist support. I do so by critiquing a paper I nearly wrote, which argued for the ongoing continued classification of gender incongruence in children. Ultimately, I argue that specialist psychological support and care should be driven by the needs of the individual child, as determined by the child and those involved with their care. By bettering our understanding as to why specialist psychological support may be beneficial for some, we move past the focus of such specialist support being provided because of the child's gender diversity. Methodologically the paper may be unusual, in comparison to traditional normative counter-argumentative bioethical position papers, but by presenting an argument for depathologization of gender diversity of children in this way there is also an alternative insight into the methods of bioethics.

Even fairly good students, when they have obtained the solution of the problem and written down neatly the argument, shut their books and look for something else. Doing so, they miss an important a...

The Cross Border Benefits Alliance-Europe (www.CBBA-Europe.eu) believes that the manner in which the Dutch government transposed article 12 paragraph 3 of the Directive (EU) 2016/2341, better known as the “IORP 2” Directive, to be inconsistent with EU law. Article 12(3) IORP 2, refers to cross border transfers of pension schemes, provides for prior approval of a majority of members and beneficiaries, and allows member states to define such a majority “in accordance with national law”. The Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs, however, is currently requiring a majority of 2/3 of both the members and beneficiaries for such approval. Such a “super-majority” requirement not only creates a significant obstacle to cross-border transfers of Dutch based pension schemes, which is the apparent purpose of new IORP 2; but it also violates the EU principle of non-discrimination based on nationality of the pension scheme1 , which is a pillar of EU law, because it would generate an unequal treatment between domestic transfers of pension schemes in the Netherlands, and cross border transfers to pension schemes in other parts of the European Economic Area. CBBA-Europe believes that the most reasonable interpretation of the sentence “in accordance with national law” should be in the sense that the same majorities of members and beneficiaries requested to approve transfers of domestic transfers provided by national laws, should be equally applicable to cross border transfers. Unequal treatments between national and European situations might be legally acceptable only if justified. One possible argument would be the aim of protecting members and beneficiaries in case of cross border transfers due to unclarity and/or shortcomings of the Directive. However, in the view of CBBA-Europe, the provisions of the IORP 2 Directive sufficiently protect members and beneficiaries in these situations. Therefore, majority requirements unreasonably strict, or in any way higher than the national rules on transfers are not justified.

This paper builds on prior research that establishes the connection between femininity and gay men by adding sexual position identity, or one’s sexual role as a top, bottom or versatile, to the argument. Using concepts of hegemonic masculinity and censure, the paper examines the historic link between feminine pursuits of fashion and aesthetics and gay identity as well as contemporary views of ‘gayness’ to argue that gay men are censured by other gay men in order to conform to heteronormative expectations of gender. The mechanism for the censure is invoking the word ‘bottom’ to criticise gay men who have feminine traits. Data were gathered from casual interviews, conversations, blogs and vlogs and demonstrate the underlying tension between masculinity and femininity within the gay, male community and how the community has co-opted heteronormative concepts of gender.

Made available in DSpace on 2018-11-12T17:26:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2018. Added 1 bitstream(s) on 2018-11-12T17:34:24Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 S0103-65132018000100203.pdf: 741128 bytes, checksum: f2ed68cd9016977a8d8f0a5c580ce1d6 (MD5) AbstractPaper aims The purpose of the paper is to offer guidance regarding how to write a Literature Review for empirical papers, that provides adequate background and convincing support. The literature review plays the fundamental role of unveiling the theory, or theories, that underpin the paper argument, sets its limits, and defines and clarifies the main concepts that will be used in the empirical sections of the text.Originality Most papers and books focus on literature review as full articles (systematic reviews, meta analyses and critical analyses) or dissertation, chapters, this paper is focused on literature review for an empirical article.Research method It is a theoretical essay.Main findings The paper summarizes the main steps for performing a literature review and guides how to organize the analyzed literature.Implications for theory and practice Well-crafted literature reviews are the cornerstone of good papers, and this paper offers some guidance on how to write good reviews for empirical papers, and, as a consequence, to produce better quality texts. Universidade de São Paulo Universidade Estadual Paulista Universidade Estadual Paulista

In this article I consider David Olson’s account of how literacy produces a new kind of consciousness, one in which a process of metacognition makes possible both knowledge and an understanding of language itself. This, he argues, enables readers and writers to reflect upon language, understand what constitutes reasoning, and recognize any logical flaws embedded in written texts. I then locate Olson within the cognitivist tradition of Jerome Bruner, critically analyzing Bruner’s concept of emotion as well as Olson’s account of experience. While he acknowledges the place of experience in John Dewey’s account of literacy, he tends to regard it as a form of consciousness rather than something more primordial. I go on to argue that experience, rather than consciousness, is a fundamental ingredient in the life of the mind and learning in general, where aesthetic emotions play a significant role. A theory of literacy that fails to take these elements into account is incomplete, however powerful it may appear. In order to make this argument, I utilize the work of John Dewey and Alfred North Whitehead, who afford experience and aesthetic emotions a primordial place in their process philosophies. I also contrast the organic concept of mind advocated by Whitehead and Dewey in their theory of learning with the mechanistic account Olson inherits from Bruner. Furthermore, I analyze the importance Whitehead ascribes to art education, and go on to show why he believes art to be the source of consciousness itself. Once again, this contrasts with Olson’s cognitivist account. I conclude that without experience and aesthetic emotion our capacity to reflect upon them through language would not be possible.

Meno belongs to the earlier dialogues of Plato. This dialogue deals with the concept of virtue and the recollective argument for the immortality of the soul. The main question of the Meno is whether virtue can be taught or not. Plato’s Socrates presents this concept by demonstrating the example of the slave boy. In this dialogue, Plato’s Socrates tries to connect the concept of Virtue and knowledge with the concept of soul.

How can we understand the role of the police in Brazil’s public security system? In particular, have reforms initiated since the 1985 transition to democracy made the police more accountable to the public? This article addresses those questions. The next section describes the importance of public security as a political issue in Brazil. The article then examines the notion of accountability, and offers a justification of the use of case studies from Recife with which to explore the dilemmas of public security reform. In the following sections, the article analyses the impact of two new accountability mechanisms on policing in Recife – the police ombudsman and community councils. The article argues that so far, the operation of these mechanisms has been marked by informal barriers, barriers that have stymied the enhancement of police accountability to the public. The conclusion summarizes the argument.

This paper inquires the ways in which paper folding constitutes a mathematical practice and may prompt a mathematical culture. To do this, we first present and investigate the common mathematical activities shared by this culture, i.e. we present mathematical paper folding as a material reasoning practice. We show that the patterns of mathematical activity observed in mathematical paper folding are, at least since the end of the nineteenth century, sufficiently stable to be considered as a practice. Moreover, we will argue that this practice is material. The permitted inferential actions when reasoning by folding are controlled by the physical realities of paper-like material, whilst claims to generality of some reasoning operations are supported by arguments from other mathematical idioms. The controlling structure provided by this material side of the practice is tight enough to allow for non-textual shared standards of argument and wide enough to provide sufficiently many problems for a practice to form. The upshot is that mathematical paper folding is a non-propositional and non-diagrammatic reasoning practice that adds to our understanding of the multi-faceted nature of the epistemic force of mathematical proof. We then draw on what we have learned from our contemplations about paper folding to highlight some lessons about what a study of mathematical cultures entails.

Traditionally, citation count has served as the main evaluation measure for a paper's importance and influence. In turn, many evaluations of authors, institutions and journals are based on aggregations upon papers (e.g. h-index). In this work, we explore measures defined on the citation graph that offer a more intuitive insight into the impact of a paper than the superficial count of citations. Our main argument is focused on the identification of influence as an expression of the citation density in the subgraph of citations built for each paper. We propose two measures that capitalize on the notion of density providing researchers alternative evaluations of their work. While the general idea of impact for a paper can be viewed as how many researchers have shown interest to a piece of work, the proposed measures are based on the hypothesis that a piece of work may have influenced some papers even if they do not contain references to that piece of work. The proposed measures are also extended to researchers and journals.

In the Diagrams 2020 conference, we (Mikkel Willum Johansen and myself) reported on our first successes with machine-learning agents identifying and counting diagrams in mathematical papers. One year later, we have progressed, and in this paper I present and discuss ways of creating evidence on the use of diagrams in mathematical publications. Studying a corpus of mathematical journals from the early 21st century and focusing on the intensity of their reliance on diagrams, I explore different means of measuring the use of diagrams as a precursor to further studying their integration into the mathematical argument.

Considering the total number of citations as the sole indicator of a research paper’s success is not always correct. Furthermore, considering the total number of reads (downloads, views, and usage) is not always correct either. Therefore, this paper proposes a new measure called paper impact effectiveness (PIE) that combines both indicators to evaluate the impact of research papers in order to provide a more realistic and fair indicator. Therefore, the total number of downloads for the most popular papers, selected from a single journal, in addition to total citations from Google Scholar were obtained to prove this paper’s argument. Universities, research ranking agencies, and researchers can use the PIE value to assess the impact (i.e., value) of research papers.

Background and Objective We previously claimed that the credibility ceiling for meta-analyses is fundamentally flawed. We respond to Dr. Ioannidis' rebuttal of those claims. Methods We use statistical reasoning. Results We agree with Dr. Ioannidis on some general points about the limitations of statistical sensitivity analyses. But critically, his response has entirely sidestepped responding to the crux of our argument, namely a direct mathematical demonstration that the method simply does not do what it was claimed to do. We reiterate that if our claim were false, it could be persuasively refuted if Dr. Ioannidis were to identify inaccuracies in our mathematical argument, which he has not done. Dr. Ioannidis had also dismissed as “absurd” the thought experiments we had used to illustrate the method's misleading conclusion; we explain why these examples still stand. Conclusion Given that the crux of our argument remains unaddressed, we continue to recommend against use of the credibility ceiling method. We are, however, sympathetic to what seem to be the underlying aims of the method, if not the execution. Developing principled methods to address those aims would be useful.

This commentary looks at the last three articles on the special issue, those by Velda McCune, Evangelia Karagiannopoulou and SueHallam and Hazel Francis. The first two papers focus on exploring students’ understanding. Velda McCune explores learner identities and the will to understand of undergraduate bioscience students. Evagelia Karagiannopoulou analyses the effect of in-class experiences and the nature of examinations on understanding of final-year psychology students. The third paper by Sue Hallam and Hazel Francis deals indirectly with understanding and focuses on analysing students’ conceptions of the nature of argument. Skills of argumentation are a crucial part of critical thinking skills which, in turn, have been shown to be related to the deep approach to learning.

This contribution refutes the common idea that identification systematically produces civic inclusion. When faced with certain subaltern groups, identification acts as a factor of alienation of the subject, increased precariousness of legal identities, or outright exclusion. Such effects do not result from any clear intention but rather from the various biases concealed in the closed artefacts that make up the identification apparatus. This argument is based on ethnographic observations, the findings of which are illustrated by the case of a woman in North Cameroon whose experience and biography reveals her exposure to various inferiorizing factors. Finally, and more fundamentally, the observation of identification in such contexts suggests that the analysis of the documentary and biometric state must no longer neglect the question of the intelligibility of its apparatus.

Page 1 of Ramsey’s 1922 very brief note(see also Mellor’s republication in the Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 40 (1989), 219-222) attempted to review Keynes’s A Treatise on Probability in the January 1922 issue of Cambridge Magazine on pp.3-5, contains a silly, stupid, and foolish example of what Ramsey claims is an application that follows from Keynes’s logical theory of probability as contained in the A Treatise on Probability. In fact, Ramsey’s example has absolutely nothing to do with anything written by Keynes on probability or in the A Treatise on Probability in his lifetime. The Ramsey example consists of two propositions. My carpet is blue and Napoleon was a great general. Neither proposition contains any relevant evidence,h, that could be used to support a conclusion,a, with regard to the other. Ramsey presents an analysis that “…, for example between 'My carpet is blue' and 'Napoleon was a great general'…”(Ramsey,1922,p.3;1989, pp. 219-220) makes no sense and is certainly not brilliant. Keynes’s theoretical exposition of propositions for use in his logical theory of probability, as detailed on pages 4, 11,40,119, and in axiom (i) on page 135 of the A Treatise on Probability, is that there exists a logical relation, P, between propositions h, which contain the relevant evidence that serves as the premises of our(Keynes’s italics,p.4) argument, and proposition a, which is the conclusion of the argument based on the h propositions that can be written as P(a/h)=α, where α is between 0 and 1,0≤α≤1. Keynes also uses the notation (a/h)=α, suppressing P which stands for probability relation. See his discussion on p.119. We will show that Ramsey’s discussion of this example will establish that he probably read-only paragraph two on page 11 of the A Treatise on Probability.

Research co-production is about doing research with those who use it. This approach to research has been receiving increasing attention from research funders, academic institutions, researchers and even the public as a means of optimising the relevance, usefulness, usability and use of research findings, which together, the argument goes, produces greater and more timely impact. The papers in this cross BMC journal collection raise issues about research co-production that, to date, have not been fully considered and suggest areas for future research for advancing the science and practice of research co-production. These papers address some gaps in the literature, make connections between subfields and provide varied perspectives from researchers and knowledge users.

This paper reflects the joint role of government, parents and the traditional custodians in reducing the high rates of mortality in the traditional initiation schools of South Africa. The main argument raised by this paper is that, traditional initiation schools are very important as they symbolize and signifies the traditional teachings and education employed when initiating young boys to manhood. Many authors recognize that accurate custom practices in initiation could reduce high number of deaths especially in the AmaXhosa clan. However, the solution towards problem in question should be applied across different clan where initiation schools are common in South Africa, and such include the involvement of government to support with legislative framework, traditional custodian to provide guidance and parents to provide necessary support where it is deemed essential for children to attend initiation schools.

The argument against assessment in MOOCs is that traditional means are impossible due to the volume of students. Crowdsourcing provides quality assessment through its diversity and in its patterns of open discourse. Crowdsourced responses help the assessment activity to serve as a knowledge building tool for both the student and the participating community. The authors advance the argument that two indices of learning are a student's ability to integrate learning elements and the subsequent discourse initiated by the student's integration. Based on this premise, student performance in MOOCs can be quantitatively assessed by a means that takes advantage of the volume of students, as opposed to being hindered by it. In the suggested method provided in the article, an instructor generates a collection of learning elements, and students are prompted to generate integration rationales that link these elements and then post the rationales on a discussion board. Data is then collected on the number of i...

J M Keynes, in a letter to Joan Robinson on November 9th,1936, responded to the utter mess that Joan Robinson had made of his liquidity preference theory of the rate of interest in the General Theory by stating: “Dear Joan, I beg you not to publish. For your argument, as it stands is most certainly nonsense.” Robinson eventually cut out all of the material, that Keynes had described as nonsense, that dealt with Keynes’s liquidity preference theory of the rate of interest before it was published in book form in 1937. In 1949, Shackle published a paper that is in the same category as Joan Robinson’s paper that was very severely criticized by Keynes in his letter to her of November 9th, 1936. Shackle’s “Probability and Uncertainty”, which he republished uncorrected in 1955 in his book Uncertainty in Economics, demonstrates that Shackle simply did not understand that his entire understanding of probability and decision making was based on the antinomian fallacy. The antinomian fallacy asserts that all moments of time are unique. Therefore, there can be no similarities or dissimilarities, or analogies, or pattern recognition between past event, present events, or future events. The antinomian fallacy, which stands at the center of Shackle’s entire theory of possibility (Shackle had no theory of probability) means that no concept of probability is even possible. Thus, only deduction is possible. Keynes’s conceptualization of an inductive logic, based on his logical theory of probability in the A Treatise on Probability (1921) and its application in the General Theory (1936), had to be completely rejected by Shackle. Shackle’s system directly contradicts and is inconsistent with Keynes logical theory of probability. Keynes himself confirmed Townshend’s 1938 statement in correspondence that the theory of liquidity preference rests on “my theory of probability”, which consisted of (a) the logical relation of probability, P(a/h)=α, where α is a rational degree of belief,(b) non-numerical probability and (c)weight of the evidence. Given this confirmation by Keynes to Townshend, Keynes would have had no choice but to have informed Shackle that his argument in 1949(1955) is “certainly nonsense” which must be revised immediately. Naturally, Shackle never published any paper putting forth his antinomian based theory of possibility while Keynes was still alive. Shackle knew that the result would be a swift and complete critique of his system by Keynes that he could not answer intellectually.

I discuss Schrodinger’s response to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paper of 1935. In particular, it is argued, based on an unpublished notebook, that while Schrodinger sympathized with the EPR argument he worried about its lack of emphasis on the role of biorthogonal expansions and on the distinction between conclusions dependent on the particular outcome obtained in a single measurement, versus those that quantify over all possible outcomes of a measurement procedure. I also discuss the different views between Schrodinger and Einstein on the issue of the completeness of quantum mechanics. Finally, I discuss the question whether Schrodinger borrowed from his correspondence with Einstein to come up with his famous Cat Paradox.

The English Placement Test (EPT) is a process-oriented integrated writing placement test for newly-admitted international students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In order to meet student demand, since 2012 the EPT has been administered in both paper-pencil (on-campus) and computer-delivered (online) versions. Both versions feature a two-draft essay writing process and have identical testing procedures except that the online EPT does not have a peer review session, which is built into the on-campus test. This study examined the comparability of the on-campus and online versions, focusing on essay quality and examinee preference among 26 examinees who took both versions within a week, in counterbalanced order. Essay quality was measured in terms of linguistic (complexity, accuracy, fluency) and rhetorical features (integration of sources, progression of ideas, argument effectiveness). No meaningful differences in essay quality were observed between the two versions, although online essays were slightly longer. Post-test questionnaire responses revealed that a majority of test-takers preferred the online version for its convenience. We discussed the advantages and disadvantages of including peer review in writing placement tests, and we concluded by providing recommendations for evaluating comparability as a part of standard quality control practice in local tests.

This chapter adopts an historicist approach to philosophy of education and it recapitulates an argument advanced in the book, designed to capture the ‘new historicists’ in philosophy of science as a loosely connected group of thinkers influenced by Wittgenstein. There remain the difficulties of the history of rationality with its fraught attempt to build an epistemological infrastructure based on universally valid principles of rationality. The history of liberal education as advanced by Siegel and Phillips has been standardly depicted as based on unchanging notions of rationality and truth, yet non-foundationalist arguments by Dewey, Wittgenstein and Foucault challenge and problematise this conception of the ‘education of reason’ to demonstrate that the history of liberal education is an attempt to eternalise the discourse of the day.

Bedside handover is the delivery of the nurse-to-nurse handover at the patient’s bedside. Although increasingly used in nursing, nurses report many barriers for delivering the bedside handover. Among these barriers is the possibility of breaching the patient’s privacy. By referring to this concept, nurses add a legal and ethical dimension to the delivery of the bedside handover, making implementation of the method difficult or even impossible. In this discussion article, the concept of privacy during handovers is being discussed by use of observations, interviews with nurses, and interviews with patients. These findings are combined with international literature from a narrative review on the topic. We provide a practice-oriented answer in which two mutually exclusive possibilities are discussed. If bedside handover does pose problems concerning privacy, this situation is not unique in healthcare and measures can be taken during the bedside handover to safeguard the patient. If bedside handover does not pose problems concerning privacy, privacy is misused by nurses to hide professional uncertainties and/or a reluctance toward patient participation. Therefore, a possible breach of privacy—whether a justified argument or not—is not a reason for not delivering the bedside handover.

In Permanence and Change, Kenneth Burke wrote that rhetorical style is nothing more than ingratiation—an attempt to gain approval by saying the right thing in the right context. Marie Lund’s commen...

Try to imagine that a figure, a table or an explanatory box in your main manuscript gets cited, in addition to citations to the main paper. Some scientists would no doubt be ecstatic at this unrealistic opportunity of gathering additional citations. This paper highlights a case in which a text box (Unger and Couzin in Science 312(5770):40---41, 2006. doi:10.1126/science.312.5770.40) within a larger paper (Couzin and Unger in Science 312(5770):38---43, 2006. doi:10.1126/science.312.5770.38), as well as the paper itself, are both cited, 33 and 8 times, respectively, according to Clarivate Analytics' (formerly Thomson Reuters) Web of Science. Both papers were published in AAAS' Science. This paper explores details of these citations and shows how four papers between 2007 and 2015 have cited both papers, including the text box. The argument is put forward that citation of least divisible units of a paper, in this case, a text box, are unfair citation practices, and since they refer to the citation of a part of the same paper, the term "nested self-citation" has been coined. Given the attention given in recent times to citation manipulation, citation rings and inappropriate citations, the risks of nested self-citations, including the skewing of citation counts, and of not correcting potentially misleading information, need to be explored.

In recent years, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have shifted their policy orientation away from a focus on economic growth alone towards a greater emphasis on country ownership and civil society participation. This found expression in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper approach introduced in the late 1990s. However, this new approach does not yet represent the fundamental change necessary to foster meaningful ownership reflective of country priorities and circumstances. In support of this argument, the inherent contradictions and constraints of the PRSP approach are examined, drawing on several developing country experiences with poverty reduction strategies.

Writing is an art and like any art form, it needs perseverance, dedication and practice. However, to write a good quality paper, the habit of reading scientific articles and analyzing them is very important. With the advent of internet and online publishing, we have access to colossal research articles on myriads of subjects making extraordinary conclusions. Evidence based practice requires us to rely on literature for our clinical practice, and we have abundant publications on all aspects claiming to justify all sides of the argument. In this context it becomes more important for all in clinical practice to be able to dissect an article and analyze it in details.