The dynamic processes of knowledge production in archaeology and elsewhere in the
humanities and social sciences are increasingly viewed within the context of
negotiation, cooperation and exchange, as the collaborative effort of groups,
clusters and communities of scholars. Shifting focus from the individual scholar
to the wider social contexts of her work, this volume investigates the
importance of informal networks and conversation in the creation of knowledge
about the past, and takes a closer look at the dynamic interaction and exchange
that takes place between individuals, groups and clusters of scholars in the
wider social settings of scientific work. Various aspects of and mechanisms at
work behind the interaction and exchange that takes place between the individual
scholar and her community, and the creative processes that such encounters
trigger, are critically examined in eleven chapters which draw on a wide
spectrum of examples from Europe and North America: from early modern
antiquarians to archaeological societies and practitioners at work during the
formative years of the modern archaeological disciplines and more recent
examples from the twentieth century. The individual chapters engage with
theoretical approaches to scientific creativity, knowledge production and
interaction such as sociology and geographies of science, and actor-network
theory (ANT) in their examination of individual–collective interplay. The book
caters to readers both from within and outside the archaeological disciplines;
primarily intended for researchers, teachers and students in archaeology,
anthropology, classics and the history of science, it will also be of interest
to the general reader.
Interactional strategies in late-nineteenth-century Classical archaeology:
the case of Adolf Furtwängler
Ulf R. Hansson
workshops, journals, networks, etc. The strong social nature of these
creative processes has long been acknowledged and applies to the whole
field, including its so-called ‘instrumental’ actors. We all build on the
achievements of others in our field and seek contact and exchange with
colleagues working on similar material. Most of us are grateful for the
opportunity to meet face to face, and we often stress the importance
of collegiality and interaction for our own professional development.
But not all of us are socially skilled; quite a few dread the pressure
had always been a body of nurses who had little use for the constraints
of professional boundaries.24 Where they saw a problem, they dealt
with it.25 As medical technologies became c ommonplace – s uch as the
thermometer in the early twentieth century, the sphygmomanometer
Negotiating the boundaries of nursing practice
8 Italy. Sisters and RAMC orderlies carrying out a patient. This image
reveals the collegiality between different members of the medical team.
Such relationships were essential for successful patient care in
active service conditions
Given the significant similarities and differences between the welfare states of Northern Europe and their reactions to the perceived 'refugee crisis' of 2015, the book focuses primarily on the three main cases of Denmark, Sweden and Germany. Placed in a wider Northern European context – and illustrated by those chapters that also discuss refugee experiences in Norway and the UK – the Danish, Swedish and German cases are the largest case studies of this edited volume. Thus, the book contributes to debates on the governance of non-citizens and the meaning of displacement, mobility and seeking asylum by providing interdisciplinary analyses of a largely overlooked region of the world, with two specific aims. First, we scrutinize the construction of the 2015 crisis as a response to the large influx of refugees, paying particular attention to the disciplinary discourses and bureaucratic structures that are associated with it. Second, we investigate refugees’ encounters with these bureaucratic structures and consider how these encounters shape hopes for building a new life after displacement. This allows us to show that the mobility of specific segments of the world’s population continues to be seen as a threat and a risk that has to be governed and controlled. Focusing on the Northern European context, our volume interrogates emerging policies and discourses as well as the lived experiences of bureaucratization from the perspective of individuals who find themselves the very objects of bureaucracies.
to the structure of the society in which they emerged’ (2014: 169). We
then gain insight into schools of thought, in order to better understand
who is participating, who is allowed to share ideas, and how those ideas
Further, we must understand the places in which knowledge is being
created. Just as David Livingstone (2003: 13) has argued that ‘scientific
knowledge bears the imprint of its location’, I argue so too do collegial
relationships. Where science is done depends on who is able to, or
allowed to, participate in the creation of knowledge; the
examples of the impact
that individual nursing sisters had on their patients’ recovery and the developing collegiality between nursing sisters and medical officers. For a range
of these, see, for example, the testimonies of Sister Sheena Kilminster, Ward
Sister Isobel Balmain and Sister Monica Baly in Mortimer, Sisters, 190–1,
individual bishops. Since the episcopal deputies spoke for the episcopate, the
opinion of the majority had to be accepted by all bishops as well as by those
clergy below them in ecclesiastical rank. That assumption was heavily based
on an understanding of the episcopate as a united corps within the church, a
collegial group with its own unique responsibilities and privileges.
Jansenism provided a context and reason for the increasing prominence of
the role of bishops as judges of doctrinal questions
Timmermanns and Berg, The Gold Standard .
65 S. Harrison and G. Dowswell, ‘Autonomy and bureaucratic accountability in primary care: what English general practitioners say’, Sociology of Health and Illness , 24:2 (2002), 208–26.
66 R. McDonald, K. Checkland, S. Harrison, and A. Coleman, ‘Rethinking collegiality: restratification in English general medical practice 2004–2008’, Social Science and Medicine , 68:7 (2009), 1199–1200.
67 Ibid., pp. 1201–5.
68 R. Flynn, ‘Clinical
closed field and have not been met with the same kind of friendliness and collegiality that I for one have come to value so greatly. The unevenness of the field's collegiality is certainly changing, and it is my hope that as more students have their interests sparked by Beowulf and other poems, writings, and materials from the period (often through the inspiration of their teachers), they might enter the field under the same or, indeed, better circumstances than I did, warmly and enthusiastically welcomed.
This community and its friendliness
assuming that whatever collegial friendship we have enjoyed is not
at an end, but instead in mid-flight. These questions have to do
with why you were so concerned to write this letter. That is,
what is your motivation as an actor here? I once thought my main
question would be, “What does Joshua Dienstag want of Stanley
Cavell?,” but I do not think that is really