Author: Center for Intercultural Dialogue

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, the Director of the Center for Intercultural Dialogue, manages this website.

CFP Nation Branding & Creative Industries (Denmark)

Nation Branding and the Creative Industries: What nation? What people? What synergies?
22-23 September 2016
Aarhus University, Denmark

This colloquium is designed to provide an exploratory space where practitioners and researchers gather to map and talk about contemporary challenges and potential benefits in the practices and thinking of nation branding.

Details available from the flyer.

Co-convenors: Department of Business Communication; School of Communication and Culture; Department of Culture and Global Studies; Aarhus University.

Military Cross-Cultural Competence

Guest PostsMilitary Cross-Cultural Competence. Guest post by Lauren Mackenzie

Context & Definition

Although the importance of cultural awareness has been widely acknowledged by the U.S. military for decades, questions of how culture should be taught and who should teach it have received renewed attention since 9/11. The wide range of missions across the U.S. military, the hierarchical rank structure, and the variety of military occupation specialties require a broad, multi-dimensional approach to culture training and education. Several service culture centers have emerged to meet the needs of this diverse population in the last decade, to include: the U.S. Army’s Culture Center (Sierra Vista, AZ), the Navy’s Center for Language, Regional Expertise & Culture (Pensacola, FL), the Air Force Culture & Language Center (Montgomery, AL) and the Marine Corps Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning (Quantico, VA). The culture centers house a mix of military and civilian faculty from the fields of communication, anthropology, international relations, and psychology to teach, research and assess the implications of culture for military personnel. The Defense Language and National Security Education website lists links to them all.

The unpredictable nature and location of military operations requires a set of universal and transferrable culture concepts and skills that personnel can employ wherever they go. The different branches of service have acknowledged the need for personnel to learn “how to learn” about culture, to observe cultural difference, and how to interact appropriately and effectively no matter where they find themselves in the world. As such, cross-cultural competence (3C) emerged as a key outcome of culture training and education. A commonly used working definition of military cross-cultural competence (Selmeski, 2007) is: the ability to quickly and accurately comprehend, then act effectively and appropriately in a culturally complex environment to achieve the desired effect – without necessarily having exposure to a particular group, region or language. However, each branch approaches the definition slightly differently. Sands & Greene-Sands (2014) review each military branch’s definition as well as the research, policy, learning, and application considerations for military contexts, to include the historical development of cross-cultural competence in professional military education and training. Along with cross-cultural competence, the military uses the terms “intercultural competence”, “cultural capabilities” and “culture-general competencies” (Rasmussen & Sieck, 2015) to characterize the skills and knowledge that are applicable in any culture.

Download the entire post as a PDF.

CFP Minerva Research Initiative Grants (US, DoD)

Just as the Cold War gave rise to new ideas and fields of study such as game theory and Kremlinology, the challenges facing the world today call for a broader conception and application of national power that goes beyond military capability. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is interested in receiving proposals for the Minerva Research Initiative, a university-led defense social science program seeking fundamental understanding of the social and cultural forces shaping U.S. strategic interests globally. The Minerva Research Initiative (Minerva) emphasizes questions of strategic importance to U.S. national security policy. It seeks to increase the Department’s intellectual capital in the social sciences and improve its ability to address future challenges and build bridges between the Department and the social science community. Minerva brings together universities and other research institutions around the world and supports multidisciplinary and cross-institutional projects addressing specific topic areas determined by the Department of Defense. The Minerva program aims to promote research in specific areas of social science and to promote a candid and constructive relationship between DoD and the social science academic community. The Minerva Research Initiative competition is for research related to the five (5) topics and associated subtopics listed below. Innovative white papers and proposals related to these research topics are highly encouraged. Detailed descriptions of the topics can be found in Section IX, “Specific Minerva Research Initiative Topics.” I. Identity, Influence, and Mobilization Culture, identity, and security Influence and mobilization for change II. Contributors to Societal Resilience and Change Governance and rule of law Migration and urbanization Populations and demographics Environment and natural resources Economics III. Power and Deterrence Global order Power projection and diffusion Beyond conventional deterrence Area studies IV. Analytical methods and metrics for security research V. Innovations in National Security, Conflict, and Cooperation Proposals will be considered both for single-investigator awards as well as larger teams. A team of university investigators may be warranted because the necessary expertise in addressing the multiple facets of the topics may reside in different universities, or in different departments of the same university. The research questions addressed should extend across a fairly broad range of linked issues where there is clear potential synergy among the contributions of the distinct disciplines represented on the team. Team proposals must name one Principal Investigator as the responsible technical point of contact. Similarly, one institution will be the primary recipient for the purpose of award execution. The relationship among participating institutions and their respective roles, as well as the apportionment of funds including sub-awards, if any, must be described in both the proposal text and the budget. The Minerva Research Initiative is a multi-service effort. Ultimately, however, funding decisions will be made by OSD personnel, with technical inputs from the Services.

Program Objectives
The Minerva Initiative is a Department of Defense (DoD)-sponsored, university-based social science research initiative launched by the Secretary of Defense in 2008 focusing on areas of strategic importance to U.S. national security policy.

The goal of the Minerva Initiative is to improve DoD’s basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the U.S. The research program will:
• Leverage and focus the resources of the Nation’s top universities.
• Seek to define and develop foundational knowledge about sources of present and future conflict with an eye toward better understanding of the political trajectories of key regions of the world.
• Improve the ability of DoD to develop cutting-edge social science research, foreign area and interdisciplinary studies, that is developed and vetted by the best scholars in these fields.

The Minerva Initiative brings together universities, research institutions, and individual scholars and supports interdisciplinary and cross-institutional projects addressing specific topic areas determined by the Secretary of Defense.

University Research Grants
The Minerva Research Initiative primarily funds social science basic research by university-led research teams.

R-DEF: Research for Defense Education Faculty
The R-DEF Mission is to increase DoD social science expertise by investing in the defense experts who teach our future military and national security leaders at PME institutions and military service academies. R-DEF awards range from $1,000 to $80,000 to offer existing PME teaching faculty the resources and time (e.g., via course buyouts) to conduct scholarly research in topics of Minerva interest.

Key Concept 76: Intercultural Sustainability by Dominic Busch

Key Concepts in ICDThe next issue of Key Concepts in intercultural Dialogue is now available. This is KC76: Intercultural Sustainability by Dominic Busch. As always, all Key Concepts are available as free PDFs; just click on the thumbnail to download.Lists organized chronologically by publication date and number, alphabetically by concept in English, and by languages into which they have been translated, are available, as is a page of acknowledgments with the names of all authors, translators, and reviewers.

KC76 Intercultural Sustainability by Dominic BuschBusch, D. (2016). Intercultural sustainability. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 76. Available from:
https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/kc76-intercultural-sustainability.pdf

The Center for Intercultural Dialogue publishes a series of short briefs describing Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue. Different people, working in different countries and disciplines, use different vocabulary to describe their interests, yet these terms overlap. Our goal is to provide some of the assumptions and history attached to each concept for those unfamiliar with it. As there are other concepts you would like to see included, send an email. If there are concepts you would like to prepare, provide a brief explanation of why you think the concept is central to the study of intercultural dialogue, and why you are the obvious person to write up that concept.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

CFP International Network for Group Research (Helsinki)

International Network for Group Research (INGRoup) Conference
Eleventh Annual Conference – First held in Europe!
14-16 July, 2016 (Preconference workshops July 14)
Radisson Blu Royal Hotel, Helsinki, Finland

Submissions
Must be received by Sunday, February 1, 2016 (23:59:59, Eastern Standard Time). No extensions to the deadline will be granted.

Overview
Societies are dependent on the formation and utilization of groups and teams, making them relevant to countless aspects of life. Accordingly, scholars who study groups can be found across a wide array of disciplines (e.g., anthropology, communication, education, engineering, history, information systems, medicine, nursing, organizational behavior, philosophy, psychology, political science, public health, sociology). The Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research (INGRoup) was created to provide a context for scholars to:
*       Promote communication about groups and teams research across fields and nations
*       Advance understanding about group dynamics through research
*       Advance theory and methods for understanding groups and teams
*       Promote interdisciplinary research

The 11th Annual INGRoup Conference will be held so scholars across disciplines can come together, share information, and learn from one another. The conference program will include paper, poster, symposia, and panel sessions, and a business meeting open to all members so the future of INGRoup can be collectively planned and shaped.

Questions? Contact Program Co-Chair, Ana Passos or Caterina Santos.

 

Key Concepts & Methods in Ethnography, Language & Communication (UK)

Key Concepts and Methods in Ethnography, Language & Communication
4 – 8 July 2016
King’s College, London

If you are researching social processes, institutions, culture or identity, but are unsure about how to analyse the discourse data from your fieldwork, then consider joining this five day research training course.

The programme is designed to help PhD and post-doctoral researchers to navigate the twin perils of over- and under-interpreting discourse data. It introduces a range of key perspectives and tools used to study language and communication ethnographically and it facilitates the study of social practice in a wide range of different settings – education, workplace, recreation, health etc. Initiated with ESRC funding in 2007 and now based in the King’s ESRC Interdisciplinary Social Science Doctoral Training Centre, this will be our 8th ELC five-day course.

The course will be held at King’s College London from Monday to Friday, and it is taught by an international team from several leading research institutions: Prof Ben Rampton (Director), Dr Jeff Bezemer, Prof Jan Blommaert, Prof Carey Jewitt, Dr Adam Lefstein, Dr Julia Snell.

The deadline for applications is 11 April 2016.  Spaces are limited, so candidates are advised to apply as soon as possible.  Some funding will be available for bursaries.

For more information, click here, or go to: www.kcl.ac.uk, enter ‘Summer course Ethnography Language & Communication’ in the search box, and follow the links.

Institute of Current World Affairs Fellowships

The Institute of Current World Affairs (ICWA) Fellowship Program

An ICWA Fellowship represents a generous investment in the future of a Fellow. The ultimate aim of the ICWA Fellowship program is to cultivate deep expertise in foreign countries and cultures. We achieve this by supporting a Fellow over a two year period, during which she or he carries out an immersive program of self-designed, independent study abroad.

ICWA’s mission is to identify and cultivate rare potential, so we are looking for promise, curiosity, and enthusiasm in our candidates. We consider whether a candidate is ready for the rapid personal growth that the Fellowship makes possible. Candidates with a passion for their project country and who are sufficiently prepared to take advantage of the opportunity we offer, have the best chance of being awarded an ICWA Fellowship. Extensive professional experience in the proposed area is not always necessary; Fellowships are aimed at developing advanced knowledge and professional skills, not awarding research or reporting opportunities to those who already possess them.

Strong candidates generally propose topics for the Fellowship that are compelling. Given our interest in achieving wide geographic distribution over time, we generally are less inclined to select projects in countries where we currently or very recently have had a Fellow. We are naturally drawn to areas of the world and topics that are less well understood and that are relevant to the United States. These could include thematic Fellowships, for example examining questions related to economic development or the environment that could be effectively pursued using the method of our Fellowships. Candidates are encouraged to browse ICWA’s archives to see the kind of projects that the Institute has supported.

REQUIREMENTS
Language Skills
We expect candidates to have the necessary language skills to allow to them to carry out their proposed project. Candidates proposing to go to China, Russia, Indonesia, India, or Brazil, for example, should have proficiency in Chinese, Russian, Bahasa, Hindi (or another relevant language) or Portuguese. It is too costly and time consuming to start from scratch, so we expect enough language proficiency so that candidates are able to function in the local language within a few months of arriving in the country. Exceptions have been made for unusual languages or situations, but these are rare.

Criteria for Consideration
Candidates must be under 36 years of age at the time of the due date for the initial letter of interest.

U.S. citizenship is not a requirement, but candidates must show strong and credible ties to U.S. society. A proposed Fellowship must hold the promise of enriching public life in the United States by enhancing the understanding of foreign countries, cultures, and trends. Public service, social activism or contribution to wider understanding in the United States is our ultimate purpose, out of a belief that the public can benefit from the knowledge and wisdom that our Fellows acquire.

Restrictions
While we expect candidates to design projects of topical interest, Fellowships are not aimed at covering news events. We do not send Fellows into war zones, or places where intense security concerns prevent Fellows from interacting with the local populace.

Fellowships are not scholarships. We do not support degree programs at universities, the writing of books, or research projects aimed at answering specific questions in a particular academic discipline.

Applicants must have excellent written and spoken English language skills and must have completed the current phase of their formal education. We do not accept applications from currently enrolled undergraduate students.

FELLOWSHIP ACTIVITIES
Fellows are required to write monthly newsletters, which are made available through our website to Institute members and other interested parties, including family, friends and professional associates of the Fellows. While the Institute has funded and will continue to fund artists, performers, and others who find various ways to participate in the societies they study, the immediate fruits of the Fellows’ learning are communicated principally through writing. Fellows should be prepared to share their experience with a general, well-educated audience, and not only with specialists in their field. Fellows work closely with the Executive Director, who serves as writing coach, editor, and mentor.

While many Fellows go on to pursue political or social causes at home and abroad, the purpose of a Fellowship is to learn about other societies, not to change them. Fellows are not permitted to engage in overtly political activities during their Fellowship. The Institute does not accept any government funds. Fellows must preserve that independence, in letter and in spirit.

Fellows should not expect to return to the United States during the two years of their Fellowship. ICWA Fellowships are immersive; a vital component of the Fellowship experience is remaining, without interruption, in the area of study for the duration of a Fellowship.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT
The Institute provides full financial support for its Fellows and their immediate families. “Full financial support” does not mean unlimited financial support, and Fellows are expected to live and spend modestly. The Institute provides Fellows with sufficient funding to allow them and their families to live in good health and reasonable comfort and to fulfill the purposes of the Fellowship.

Fellowship Opportunities
Donors’ Fellowship: The generous support received from contributors enables ICWA to appoint a Donors’ Fellows every two years. Topics and areas of study are unrestricted.

Fellows with appropriate topics may receive support from specially endowed funds, including:
John Miller Musser Memorial Forest & Society Fellowships offer people with graduate degrees in forestry or forest-related specialities an opportunity to broaden their understanding of the relationship of forest-resource problems to humans, including policy-makers, environmentalists, farmers, scientists and forest-product industrialists.

John O. Crane Memorial Fellowships provide support for study in East Europe and the Middle East.

APPLICATIONS AND DEADLINES
Those interested in applying for an Institute of Current World Affairs Fellowship should send an initial Letter of Interest and a resume to the Institute via email. (Post is also accepted.)

In your letter of interest, tell us what you would do if you had a two-year, self-designed Fellowship overseas and why you’re the right person to carry it out. There is no fixed length for the letter of interest. Take the space that you need to make a cogent case for yourself. Please indicate your age, as applicants must be under the age of 36 at the time that the letter of interest is due.

Selected Fellows are expected to depart for their Fellowship within six months of their selection.

This is a competitive process. The strongest applicants will be invited to submit a more detailed application.

Deadlines
To be considered for the June 2016 Fellowship appointment, letters of Interest are due on March 1, 2016.

Applications are not considered on a rolling basis.

We are unable to respond to all inquiries, but will certainly answer those that fit our Fellowship requirements.

Email: apply@icwa.org

For applications via post: 
Institute of Current World Affairs
1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 615
Washington, DC 20036

Lauren Mackenzie Profile

ProfilesDr. Lauren Mackenzie is Professor of Military Cross-Cultural Competence at the Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning (CAOCL), Marine Corps University, Quantico, VA.

Lauren Mackenzie

She also currently serves as the Marine Corps University faculty council president as well as an adjunct Professor of Military/Emergency Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences. She conducts research relating to cross-cultural competence, oversees culture-related curriculum development and outcomes assessment, and delivers communication and culture lectures across the Professional Military Education spectrum, to include the Marine Corps Command & Staff College, War College, Expeditionary Warfighting School, and the College of Enlisted Military Education. Recently, she was invited to provide “Intercultural Communication” presentations at the Women, Peace & Security annual conference, the FBI Academy, the U.S. Naval War College and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, among others. From 2009-2014, Dr. Mackenzie served as Associate Professor of Cross-Cultural Communication at the U. S. Air Force Culture and Language Center where she taught resident electives at the Air Command & Staff College and designed and delivered the “Introduction to Cross-Cultural Communication” on-line course, completed by over 1,000 Airmen annually.

Dr. Mackenzie earned her M.A. and Ph.D. in Communication from the University of Massachusetts and has taught intercultural competence courses throughout the Department of Defense over the past ten years. Prior to working for the Department of Defense, she taught a variety of intercultural and interpersonal communication courses at the University of Massachusetts, the State University of New York Potsdam, and Columbus State University, among others. Dr. Mackenzie’s most recent publications are devoted to best practices in military on-line culture learning and assessment, with recent entries in the International Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication and the Handbook of Communication Training. She is also the co-author with Dr. Kerry Fosher of the Culture General Guidebook for Military Professionals.

Selected Publications:

Mackenzie, L. & Post, K. (2019). Relationship repair strategies for the military professional: The impact of cultural differences on expectations and applications. Marine Corps University Journal, 10(1), 128-141.

Mackenzie, L. & Tenzek, K. (2018). Cultural variation in end-of-life conversations: Using Cultural Discourse Analysis as a tool to analyze case studies designed for professional military education. In M. Scollo & T. Milburn (Eds.), Engaging and transforming global communication through Cultural Discourse Analysis (pp. 91-110). Teaneck, NJ: Farleigh Dickinson University Press.

Steen, S., Mackenzie, L. & Buechner, B. (2018). Incorporating cosmopolitan communication into diverse teaching and training contexts:  Considerations from our work with military students and veterans. In D. Becker & J.D. Wallace (Eds.), Handbook of communication training: A best practices framework for assessing and developing competence (pp. 401-413). New York: Routledge.

Mackenzie, L. & Miller, J. (2017). Military cross-cultural competence. In Y. Y. Kim & K. McKay-Semmler (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication. Wiley Blackwell.

Mackenzie, L. & Wallace, M. (2015). Intentional design: Using iterative modification to enhance online learning for professional cohorts. In T. Milburn (Ed.), Communicating user experience: Applying local strategies research to digital media design (pp. 155-182). Lanham, MD: Lexington.

Mackenzie, L. (2014). Strategic enablers: How intercultural communication skills advance micro-level international security. Journal of Culture, Language & International Security, 1(1), 85-96.

Mackenzie, L., & Wallace, M. (2014). Cross-cultural communication contributions to professional military education: A distance learning case study. In R. Greene-Sands & A. Greene-Sands (Eds.), Cross-cultural competence for a 21st century military. Lanham, MD: Lexington.

Mackenzie, L., Fogarty, P., & Khachadoorian, A. (2013). A model for military online culture education: Key findings and best practices. EDUCAUSE Review. 48(4).

Areas of Interest:
Military Cross-Cultural Competence, Communication of Respect , On-line Military Culture Education, Intercultural Situational Judgment Tests

Work for CID:
Lauren Mackenzie wrote the guest post, Military Cross-Cultural Competence.

World Congress of Applied Linguistics (Brazil)

The 18th World Congress of Applied Linguistics invites proposals for presentations that are related to policy, research, theory and practice in any area of Applied Linguistics. Proposals may be for individual papers, posters, symposia or workshops (see below for information about submissions).

Theme: Innovation and Epistemological Challenges in Applied Linguistics.

Deadline for submissions: March 31 st, 2016.

Plenary speakers:
– Aneta Pavlenko (Temple University)
– Ben Rampton (King’s College London)
– Lorenza Mondada (University of Basel)
– Luiz Paulo da Moita Lopes (Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro)
– Marilda Cavalcanti (Universidade de Campinas)
– Mary Bucholtz (University of California, Santa Barbara)

Host AILA affiliate: Association of Applied Linguistics of Brazil (ALAB)

From Monday 18 January 2016 all proposals should be submitted via the AILA 2017 website.

Detailed call for papers

Multi/Cross-Cultural Education in Need of Paradigmatic Change

Guest PostsMulti/Cross-Cultural Education in Need of Paradigmatic Change
Guest post by Zvi Bekerman, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

As an educational anthropologist, I have been involved, for many years now, in the study of inter/cross-cultural encounters. At first doing ethnographic research on, rather short educational cross-cultural encounters, and for the last fourteen years following the activities of the integrated, bilingual Palestinian-Arab and Jewish schools in Israel. After so many years of continuous research I would have expected to have more clarity about the potential of these educational efforts to sooth conflict, yet I stay ambivalent. My ambivalence and, at times, my doubts have little to do with the qualities of those involved in the educational initiatives – teachers, principals, parents, students, supervisors and more. Any dissatisfaction I may sense has little to do with the quality of individual teachers or students and much to do with the quality of the systems we all cooperatively build for these educational initiatives to inhabit. This is not to say that these initiatives, as any other educational contexts might not benefit from a more critical approach to their implemented practices and their sustaining theories, it is just to make sure we understand that what could be considered unsuccessful practices are many times adaptive moves to local and global systemic circumstances we collectively create and sustain.

In this short note I want to point at some paradigmatic issues, which I believe if not dealt with, might stand in the way of allowing educational cross-cultural or multicultural efforts to contribute, even in a small way, to the improvement of relations among communities in conflict. These paradigmatic issues have to with the failure of multi/cross-cultural education to account for the primacy of national and psychologized educational perspectives in their theoretical analyses while failing to recognize the connection between their essentialist approach to identity and culture and their larger sociopolitical context, the nation-state. Theoretically I’m aligned with what has recently come to be identified as the ‘ontological turn’ in philosophy and the social sciences (Escobar, 2007; Kivinen & Piiroinen, 2004; Paleček & Risjord, 2013; van Dijk & Withagen, 2014), encouraging a move from the epistemological to the ontological.

The move starts by restoring the concept of identity/culture to its historical sources, thus de-essentializing it. It then points at the nation state as the definite product of modernity; a modernity that has produced a distinct social form, radically different from that of the traditional order of the past. This modernity is characterized by very specific forms of territoriality and surveillance capabilities that monopolize effective control over social relations across definite time-space distances and over the means of violence. The nation state can be viewed as a political socio-economic phenomenon that seeks to exercise its control over the populations comprising it by establishing a culture which is at once homogeneous, anonymous (all the members of the polity, irrespective of their personal sub-group affiliations, are called upon to uphold this culture) and universally literate (all members share the culture the state has canonized). Reflecting modern psychologized epistemologies upon which it builds its power, the nation state creates a direct and unobstructed relationship between itself and all its ‘individual’ citizens: not tribe, ethnic group, family or church is allowed to stand between the citizen and the State.

These moves produce new meanings which are then developed into a methodology – cultural analysis – that is to say the gaining of skills on how to read/describe the world through careful observation and recording of practical activity, which in turn allows for a shift from the individual or the socializing group as the crucial analytic unit for (educational) analysis to the processes and mechanisms of producing cultural contexts through social interaction. Finally, the process leads to a new articulation of major policy issues related no longer to identity/culture and its components (individual, texts, etc), but to the analysis of particular identities/cultures and how these are produced/constructed in the particular context of particular societies.

Looking at the world in this way, seriously and critically, means being open to finding new criteria through which to name categories and their phenomena. The process could be liberating in that it could bring about the understanding that identity/culture are not necessarily the right criteria through which to describe the world, its inhabitants and events; not that they do not necessarily exist or are only hegemonic constructs, but that though they are legitimate, they need not result in individual suffering.

When these elements are not accounted for in multi/cross-cultural educational efforts, they risk consolidating that same reality they intended to overcome. Multi/cross-cultural education is in urgent need of reviewing its paradigmatic foundations while problematizing the political structures which sustain the conflicts it tries to overcome.

We should not expect multi/cross-cultural educational initiatives to be able to offer solutions to longstanding and bloody conflicts that are rooted in very material unequal allocation of resources. Unfortunately, many times societies/governments find it easier to support such initiatives rather than work hard towards structural change. In my recent book, The Promise of Integrated, Multicultural, and Bilingual Education: Inclusive Palestinian-Arab and Jewish Schools in Israel (Oxford University Press, 2016), those interested will find the above arguments developed and expanded.

References

Escobar, A. (2007). The ‘ontological turn’ in social theory. A commentary on ‘Human geography without scale’, by Sallie Marston, John Paul Jones II and Keith Woodward. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32(1), 106-111.

Kivinen, O., & Piiroinen, T. (2004). The relevance of ontological commitments in social sciences: Realist and pragmatist viewpoints. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 34(3), 231-248.

Paleček, M., & Risjord, M. (2013). Relativism and the ontological turn within anthropology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 43(1), 3-23.

van Dijk, L., & Withagen, R. (2014). The horizontal worldview: A Wittgensteinian attitude towards scientific psychology. Theory & Psychology, 24(1), 3-18.

Download the entire post as a PDF.