Learning Activism: The Intellectual Life of Contemporary Social Movements
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Learning Activism: The Intellectual Life of Contemporary Social Movements by Aziz Choudry North York, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2015, 199 pages ISBN: 978-1-4426-0790-3 (paperback) For Aziz Choudry (2015), author of Learning Activism: The Intellectual Life of Contemporary Social Movements, learning and knowledge production, as well as theory and strategy development among social are best understood through engagement and dialogue that occur within the movements themselves. As a means to produce knowledge that is relevant to the social movement, learning comes through action and experience, the behind-the-scenes work where activists organize, negotiate and deliberate, and educate and learn from movement successes and pitfalls within formal and informal spaces. Learning in many ways, attempts to bridge the divide between social movement activists and out-of-the-box scholars who study or view such movements as sterile environments containing who may be thought of incapable of theorizing or producing knowledge. The first chapter, Knowledge Production, Learning, and Education in Social Movement Activism, begins by directly stating that the future is influenced through present and past struggles, by the choices made and theories that are developed by individuals or collectives, by ordinary people and so-called experts. The author makes clear that social movements can fail in the absence of theory that explains economic conditions and power struggles. Yet, important point often overlooked by activist scholars specifically, as well as educational researchers more broadly, is one of Choudry's (2015) finest critiques, who does the theorizing? While arguing against intellectual appropriation of struggles in social the author challenges academics and activists to think about and legitimate the work done in day-to-day social movement practices. Without recognition and validation of knowledge production and learning that come about through social movement practices and struggles in social activism, theory development and knowledge production become monopolised by institutional experts. The second chapter, Critiquing the Study of Social Movements: Theories, Knowledge, History, and Action, examines the intersection between theory development, understanding social movement, and knowledge production. This chapter brings a sharp critique of not only the historical social movement scholarship that perceived activism as merely a social problem, and deviant acts imposed upon a stable society, but the perception of activists displaying irrational behaviours and the movement itself being abnormal has endured to this day. From Occupy Wall Street protests in Zuccotti Park to the 2012 Quebec student strike, concerns brought forward by activists have often been dismissed in favour of maintaining current power structures while negatively characterising protestors through media outlets, elected officials, and certain segments of the public. Aziz Choudry argues against the reflexive application of theories that have been fashioned in the First World/North towards colonized contexts without reflecting on the unique lived experiences, struggles, and social relations of people in the Third World/ South. This obligates not only social activist researchers to reject an overattachment to paradigms, typologies, and criteria for describing movements, but for social science scholars as well who may continue to codify and rely on specialized language and knowledge that only acts as a barrier to meaningful discussions between scholars and research participants (Choudry, 2015, p. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,030 |
| Communication savante | 0,015 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».