people access to information – facts – on the situation in the Mediterranean, so that they at least are able to form their own judgement on it. They can then decide whether they have a responsibility. Definitely the need is there. After eleven years with MSF, it was really this kind of political and social engagement that interested me. SOS is a ‘hydroponic NGO’, if I may put it like that – nourished from below. Working with the organisation in Switzerland is particularly interesting, given that the country is not very open-minded on migration. It
An Interview with Caroline Abu Sa’Da, General Director of SOS MEDITERRANEE Suisse
the matter more starkly, be allowed to continue as currently constituted) than the other elements of that system. The reason for this should be self-evident: humanitarian action is an integral part of the system; indeed, it can be argued that for at least thirty years, the actions of relief agencies, above all the international private, voluntary ones, have served as the moral warrant for liberal globalisation. Only the human rights movement has been more central in this regard. 1 To be sure, the perceived need for relief NGOs to play this
Humanitarianism in a Post-Liberal World Order
materially (usually because it has some interest in the outcome); and, two, no other major power opposes the action because it has a vital interest at stake. To demand intervention, to open up access, to call for trials all presume that there is, somewhere in the system, the capacity for pressure to be exerted in the name of some degree of accountability. Until 2011, this meant what do the Americans think? They could act or block action. Now China (and under Chinese cover, Russia) have this kind of veto power too. This is obvious in Syria
Community–university research partnerships in global perspectives
Edited by: Budd L. Hall, Edward T. Jackson, Rajesh Tandon, Jean-Marc Fontan and Nirmala Lall
This book is based on a three-year international comparative study on poverty reduction and sustainability strategies . It provides evidence from twenty case studies around the world on the power and potential of community and higher education based scholars and activists working together in the co-creation of transformative knowledge. Opening with a theoretical overview of knowledge, democracy and action, the book is followed by analytical chapters providing lessons learned and capacity building, and on the theory and practice of community university research partnerships. It also includes lessons on models of evaluation, approaches to measuring the impact and an agenda for future research and policy recommendations. The book overviews the concept of engaged scholarship and then moves to focus on community-university research partnerships. It is based on a global empirical study of the role of community-university research partnerships within the context of poverty alleviation, the creation of sustainable societies and, broadly speaking, the Millennium Development Goals. The book frames the contribution of community-university research partnerships within a larger knowledge democracy framework, linking this practice to other spaces of knowledge democracy. These include the open access movement, new acceptance of the methods of community-based and participatory research and the call for cognitive justice or the need for epistemologies of the Global South. It takes a particular look at the variety of structures that have been created in the various universities and civil society research organizations to facilitate and enhance research partnerships.
The beast that no-one could – or should – control?
findings should be made accessible to the public. The growth of open access has coincided with a shift in thinking about public involvement in science, from the deficit model of public understanding of science initiatives, which tended to see the issue as one of ordinary people’s lack of knowledge, to the more balanced notion of public engagement (Stilgoe et al., 2014). This makes it tricky to identify the precise effects of open access, which is the aim of this chapter. To set the scene, I will give a brief description of the open-access movement and recent policy
Barbara Prainsack and Sabina Leonelli
the politics of openness are several answers to this question. One answer lies in our political economy. The shift from familial to corporate capitalism (Fraser, 2015) and the financialisation of capitalism have together solidified the dominance of commercial interests over politics. Corporate actors have easy access to national power centres, to the extent that they co-regulate important national policies (Gamble, 2014). As a result, not only governments but also citizens have lost control over important policy domains such as housing, work and energy (Wagenaar
Brigitte Nerlich, Sarah Hartley, Sujatha Raman and Alexander Thomas T. Smith
research and knowledge to the wider public, but also the many barriers that exist or are emerging to impede the open-access movement. Carmen McLeod deals with issues of transparency and secrecy in the context of animal research through the lens of two transparency initiatives: the Swiss Basel Declaration announced in 2011, and the UK Concordat on Openness in Animal Research launched in 2012. In the final chapter of this part, Roda Madziva and Vivien Lowndes deal with transparency, evidence and publics in the context of a very topical issue – immigration. This chapter
The autonomous life?
narrow streets and canals to a functionalist cityscape that privileged automobile access. Such urban planning was antithetical to a built environment that bred neighborhood cohesion and gezelligheid , a Dutch term that vaguely translates as warm coziness, with connotations of nostalgia and intimacy. In terms of the squatters movement, the Nieuwmarkt campaign enabled the squatters to transition from disparate groups that existed simultaneously to a network of interdependent squatters groups. The
Security/ Mobility and politics of movement
Marie Beauchamps, Marijn Hoijtink, Matthias Leese, Bruno Magalhães and Sharon Weinblum
movement, to origins, destinations, and directions, to means and methods of movement, and many more. But let us first look at how critical security studies have engaged mobility. If we were to pick one major theme, it would probably be that a main characteristic of the current politics of security is that it thrives on the openness of our times. Drawing on the work of Michel Foucault ( 2007 ; 2008 ) who argued that mobility (he
Passion and politics
racist elements are encountered within the movement but remain adamant that this does not mean the movement itself is racist. They point to the commitment to ‘kicking out racists’ and to making the movement ‘open to all’ (regardless of colour, ethnicity, faith, gender and sexuality) as evidence of this aspiration. Central to respondents’ understanding of the movement’s non-racism is its hostility towards traditional far right parties (especially the BNP). At the individual level, activists construct a non-racist self by mobilising a narrow definition of racism as