Search Results

This study contributes to research on policy practice by enriching our knowledge about the forms that the policy engagement of social work academics takes, the dynamics of this engagement, and the factors associated with it. The study is based on structured interviews with 24 faculty members from schools of social work in Israel, all of whom are actively involved in policy formulation. The findings of the study reveal that participants are motivated by ideology and values to engage in policy and that they do so despite their perception that there is a lack of institutional support for this type of activity. The participants report that they successfully manage to combine their policy-related activities with teaching and research. The study also indicates that the social policy formulation process in Israel offers specific opportunities for the policy engagement of social work faculty.

Most people perceive the university as an institution composed of professional faculty whose job is to teach students and to perform research. However, this idealized view stands in for the real complexity of the university as an institutional ecology of work—in which every hour of faculty work is brought into being by hundreds of hours of time spent maintaining the physical and administrative space within which that work is conducted: libraries, network, payroll, buildings, and all the rest of it. This chapter provides an understanding of how other kinds of academic jobs stand in relation to that of the tenured faculty, and how those relationships have been structured in the academic imaginary. Situating the discussion within the domain of digital humanities puts these issues into more specific focus. It brings into view a wider range of work practices and roles: the novel job descriptions that arise out of digital humanities project work but also the novel forms of academic practice that even conventional academics find themselves undertaking when they embark on a digital project. The chapter sets out some case studies based on the author’s own work experience and tries unpack their significance and what they can reveal about different kinds of academic work.

This chapter presents an account of genetic criticism and its relevance to Ulysses. Ulysses alone does not account for readers' indifference to Joyce's revisions or to variations among the printed versions. Textual critics, who study such matters, have long bemoaned the tendency of other critics to ignore textual matters completely. Despite claims like Wellek and Warren's, interest in how Joyce wrote Ulysses is as old as the work itself. Early academic work on the Ulysses manuscripts focused on Joyce's writing of specific episodes or on particular stages in the book's development, such as the proofs.

This chapter examines the Macpherson inquiry to analyse links between academic work and the politics of race and policing. It explores some of the significant academic evidence on institutional racism and on racial attacks presented to the Macpherson inquiry. While it is possible, particularly with institutional racism, to chart a connection between some of that and the conclusions of the inquiry, there is also a significant disconnection that provides a more nuanced idea of what impact is and how it occurs, as shown via the discussion of the internal politics of the Macpherson inquiry. An additional factor is that ‘real time’ events the police respond to indicates that they had, in some ways, already ‘moved on’ from institutional racism as early as 1999, even though that mostly precedes a decade of concerted policy implementation around racism.

This chapter explores two separate paths that led to the P versus NP question. In the end it was Steve Cook in the West and Leonid Levin in the East who would first ask whether P = NP. Science does not happen in a vacuum, and both sides have a long history leading to the work of Cook and Levin. The chapter covers just a small part of those research agendas, the struggle in the West to understand efficient computation and the struggle in the East to understand the necessity of perebor. Both would lead to P versus NP. Today, with most academic work available over the Internet and with generally open travel around the world, there is now one large research community instead of two separate ones.

This chapter discusses E.R. Dodds’s relationship with modern poetry. While he is very much known as a professional classicist rather than poet, Dodds might still be enlighteningly thought of as a poetical scholar. This is not only in the sense that his scholarship relates to his attempts to write poetry or that he followed in the footsteps of his academic mentor Gilbert Murray. Rather, his academic work was partly informed by the modes of thinking and feeling that were embodied in the work of the modern poets he admired, while his words and ideas also had some impact on certain contemporary poets. The chapter then traces the intertwined relationship between Dodds’s developing scholarly interests—particularly in relation to questions of metaphysics and mysticism—and his engagement with modern poetry in the case of two of the poets he considers to have been the best of his lifetime: W.B. Yeats and Louis MacNeice.