2011 Videos | BiblioTech Program:
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
MPhil Viva--Some Guidelines
Structure of presentation for MPhil viva
1. Opening slide with title, your name and registred no
2. Background to your research areas
3. Objective of your research
4. Outcome of Literature review
5. Methodology followed-Justification
6. Discussion
7. Findings
8. Conclusion
9. Suggestions for further research
Things to Keep in Mind
1. Ensure that your findings and conclusion match your objectives and research questions stated in the beginning of the dissertation
2. When the question as to why you chose the topic you could begin with your personal reason but emphasise on the research gap that led you to the research
3. Avoid putting points on the PPT which are not there in your dissertation.
Presentation
1. Greet the external examiner, internal examiner, guide, faculty members and others. Welcome them to the presentation.
2. After the question answer session thank the external examiner, internal examiner, guide, faculty members, others.
3. Dress formally
4. As far as possible the slide design should be plain black and white
Defense
1. In case a genuine gap in your dissertation or argument is shown accept it. Say you will attend to it.
2. Be confident but polite while answering any question.
Standard Questions asked in MPhil/PhD Vivas
All the best.
1. Opening slide with title, your name and registred no
2. Background to your research areas
3. Objective of your research
4. Outcome of Literature review
5. Methodology followed-Justification
6. Discussion
7. Findings
8. Conclusion
9. Suggestions for further research
Things to Keep in Mind
1. Ensure that your findings and conclusion match your objectives and research questions stated in the beginning of the dissertation
2. When the question as to why you chose the topic you could begin with your personal reason but emphasise on the research gap that led you to the research
3. Avoid putting points on the PPT which are not there in your dissertation.
Presentation
1. Greet the external examiner, internal examiner, guide, faculty members and others. Welcome them to the presentation.
2. After the question answer session thank the external examiner, internal examiner, guide, faculty members, others.
3. Dress formally
4. As far as possible the slide design should be plain black and white
Defense
1. In case a genuine gap in your dissertation or argument is shown accept it. Say you will attend to it.
2. Be confident but polite while answering any question.
Standard Questions asked in MPhil/PhD Vivas
1. What is your research question?
2. What is your methodology?
3. How does your research methodology justify your research question?
4. Why did you do this research?-Research gap
5. Do your research question and methodology reflect in the title? How?
6. Why did you choose these films/these photographs/this institution/text for study? (The answer should come from the nature of research question and not person choice, preference, or guide suggested etc.)
7. Justification for methodology. Why did you chose this method/methodology and not another one?
8. Why didn't you chose Indian texts /films?
2. What is your methodology?
3. How does your research methodology justify your research question?
4. Why did you do this research?-Research gap
5. Do your research question and methodology reflect in the title? How?
6. Why did you choose these films/these photographs/this institution/text for study? (The answer should come from the nature of research question and not person choice, preference, or guide suggested etc.)
7. Justification for methodology. Why did you chose this method/methodology and not another one?
8. Why didn't you chose Indian texts /films?
All the best.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Doctoral Degree Debates in the USA
New Era for Ph.D. Education
A Decline in Doctorates
The World View - Doctoral Education: Too Much?
Wrong Incentives for British Doctoral Programs?
Sociologists Blast Doctoral Rankings
How Doctoral Graduates Fare
Women Lead in Doctorates
The plagiarism police deserve thanks for defending the honour of the PhD
A Decline in Doctorates
The World View - Doctoral Education: Too Much?
Wrong Incentives for British Doctoral Programs?
Sociologists Blast Doctoral Rankings
How Doctoral Graduates Fare
Women Lead in Doctorates
The plagiarism police deserve thanks for defending the honour of the PhD
Education: The PhD factory
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Critical Historiography of Science: Rajan Gurukkal
The following write up by Ann Mary is based on the lecture on Critical Historiography of Science delivered by Rajan Gurukkal, at Centre for Contemporary Studies, (CCS), Indian Institute of Science, (IISc) Bangalore on 29 April 2012. Thank you Ann for making the talk available for others.
----------------------------------------------
The talk began by defining historiography. Historiography is understood as a story about doing history.This talk traced out a historiography of science by locating the field around two dominant positions.
1.From the perspective of the Scientist: The Scientist , who “does” a history of science usually asks the following questions : Who, What, When and Where. This practice is useful for a familiarization with the vocabulary/ language of the field within which the Scientist is working.
2.From the perspective of the Historian : A Historian attempts to create an explanation for the above questions by asking “ How” and “Why”. This practice, within history of science, often becomes a mere social history of scientific practices.
Both of these positions have shaped methods and debates in the field of enquiry known as the history of science.
1. Boris Hessen’ works in 1927: Disciplinary beginnings of history of science.The questions about method from the earlier mentioned two viewpoints are already seen here in its initial forms. The Internalists believe that the scientist engages in an activity which works in an autonomous sphere of knowledge production. The Externalists believe that all the activities of scientists are driven by socio- economic (external) conditions.
2.Robert Merton: Moves the influence of external factors into the activity of research itself. External factors here refer to the sociological factors (like the influences of the teacher on the student as motivation) which constitutes the field of scientific knowledge production. Sociologist influences history of science. The scientist’s centrality continues in this tradition but the “protective belt” around knowledge begins to become visible.
3.Ludwig Fleck (1935): Possible to associate with Merton. Views scientific facts as products of a “thought collective “(Denkkollektiv) . The historian of science can thus study scientific fact as a sociological “product.” (Denkstil)
The Manhattan Project and the World War II are an important phase for the history of science. The scientist as engaged in a child like “innocence” in the pursuit of “truth” is reaffirmed. It is easy to see the association with the apoliticality of the chronological list of “Inventions and Discoveries” that the Scientist begins to see as a “history of science”. The relationship with “external” consequences/ causes is rearticulated as new debates of the “Big Science”.
Thomas Kuhn’ s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) shakes the foundational idea of “truth” as the end of the march of reason. Talks of the social construction of “truths”.
There gradually emerges a way of producing knowledge about science which is more conscious about uncertainties than the earlier certainty about truth. Heisenberg and Gellman demonstrate this in their insistence on the denial of predictability as the ends of scientific activity.
With the emergence of postmodernism within academics, history of science further discusses how orders are created to impose form on unpredictability. Thus, narratives and grand narratives are taken up for study as constructive acts. A shift towards the subjectivities of the scientist leads to attempts at producing knowledges like “ a non European history of science”.
Certain trends within history of science are now once again reaffirming the division between the two points of view of the historian and the scientist. An insistence that this distinction needs to be maintained is noted in the works of historians of science.The lecturer perceives this to be a back to basics situation (useless for epistemology within history of science).
How do these intellectual traditions affect the historian of science who is attempting to write a history?
The notion that inventions arise by building up on previous “related” inventions deters the historian of science. This notion can be associated with the belief that science is the progress of reason. But when the historian of science attempts to reconstitute a history by deriving from this idea of linearity (which translates as chronology of “Inventions and Discoveries”), there are huge gaps which cannot be explained.
These gaps arise because of several factors. Two of them are:
a) Accidental inventions and discoveries : An attempt is made to “explain” these by fitting them in with previously produced knowledge.
b) Incompleteness as cause for producing new knowledge: Scientific discoveries sometimes emerge from certain systems of thought and branch off into completely unrecognizable new forms.
For Example : Einstein’s work can be perceived as an attempt to rework and provide examples for Newton’s classical physics. But the establishment of Einstein’ s work became a groundwork in itself for new work. A lot of Newton’s work remains to be explored even today.
(Like Derrida’ s 1966 lecture when he tried to give a tribute to Strauss. Ended up questioning the very assumptions of Strauss’ thought)
How does the historian of science reconsititute knowledge then?
The historian of science needs to perceive events (The inventions and discoveries list, the social history of scientific catalogues) as evidence to reconstitute the processes at work.
A Deleuzian analogy was used here. The historian of science sees “the spots on the surface” But when the historian digs deeper, she reached crossroads and needs to consciously choose trajectories that she can best justify. Here is where the subjectivity of the historian comes into play (including theoretical preferences).
The historian must be aware of theory as an illusory unification that gives wholeness to the visible and ill fitting parts.
(The analogy of the arc of a circle was used. The arc becomes cognitively identifiable and useful only if the illusion of the circle is conceptualized. It is this activity that a critical historian of science would engage in)
The historian must be beware of the possibility of constituting speculative evidence.
Example :The Indian Philosopher Kanika was aware of the potential of the atom. (Sphota model) But can the historian of science who is writing the story of nuclear physics in the 19th century use this information? No. Because the association is nearly impossible to support with evidence (as far as we know now).
The historian of science , must work with “an absent cause” ( Analogy: The historian does not even have the smoke but only the ash to work with, fire needs to be re raked). Must abandon the idea of writing the “one “ true story of the history of science.
----------------------------------------------
The talk began by defining historiography. Historiography is understood as a story about doing history.This talk traced out a historiography of science by locating the field around two dominant positions.
1.From the perspective of the Scientist: The Scientist , who “does” a history of science usually asks the following questions : Who, What, When and Where. This practice is useful for a familiarization with the vocabulary/ language of the field within which the Scientist is working.
2.From the perspective of the Historian : A Historian attempts to create an explanation for the above questions by asking “ How” and “Why”. This practice, within history of science, often becomes a mere social history of scientific practices.
Both of these positions have shaped methods and debates in the field of enquiry known as the history of science.
1. Boris Hessen’ works in 1927: Disciplinary beginnings of history of science.The questions about method from the earlier mentioned two viewpoints are already seen here in its initial forms. The Internalists believe that the scientist engages in an activity which works in an autonomous sphere of knowledge production. The Externalists believe that all the activities of scientists are driven by socio- economic (external) conditions.
2.Robert Merton: Moves the influence of external factors into the activity of research itself. External factors here refer to the sociological factors (like the influences of the teacher on the student as motivation) which constitutes the field of scientific knowledge production. Sociologist influences history of science. The scientist’s centrality continues in this tradition but the “protective belt” around knowledge begins to become visible.
3.Ludwig Fleck (1935): Possible to associate with Merton. Views scientific facts as products of a “thought collective “(Denkkollektiv) . The historian of science can thus study scientific fact as a sociological “product.” (Denkstil)
The Manhattan Project and the World War II are an important phase for the history of science. The scientist as engaged in a child like “innocence” in the pursuit of “truth” is reaffirmed. It is easy to see the association with the apoliticality of the chronological list of “Inventions and Discoveries” that the Scientist begins to see as a “history of science”. The relationship with “external” consequences/ causes is rearticulated as new debates of the “Big Science”.
Thomas Kuhn’ s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) shakes the foundational idea of “truth” as the end of the march of reason. Talks of the social construction of “truths”.
There gradually emerges a way of producing knowledge about science which is more conscious about uncertainties than the earlier certainty about truth. Heisenberg and Gellman demonstrate this in their insistence on the denial of predictability as the ends of scientific activity.
With the emergence of postmodernism within academics, history of science further discusses how orders are created to impose form on unpredictability. Thus, narratives and grand narratives are taken up for study as constructive acts. A shift towards the subjectivities of the scientist leads to attempts at producing knowledges like “ a non European history of science”.
Certain trends within history of science are now once again reaffirming the division between the two points of view of the historian and the scientist. An insistence that this distinction needs to be maintained is noted in the works of historians of science.The lecturer perceives this to be a back to basics situation (useless for epistemology within history of science).
How do these intellectual traditions affect the historian of science who is attempting to write a history?
The notion that inventions arise by building up on previous “related” inventions deters the historian of science. This notion can be associated with the belief that science is the progress of reason. But when the historian of science attempts to reconstitute a history by deriving from this idea of linearity (which translates as chronology of “Inventions and Discoveries”), there are huge gaps which cannot be explained.
These gaps arise because of several factors. Two of them are:
a) Accidental inventions and discoveries : An attempt is made to “explain” these by fitting them in with previously produced knowledge.
b) Incompleteness as cause for producing new knowledge: Scientific discoveries sometimes emerge from certain systems of thought and branch off into completely unrecognizable new forms.
For Example : Einstein’s work can be perceived as an attempt to rework and provide examples for Newton’s classical physics. But the establishment of Einstein’ s work became a groundwork in itself for new work. A lot of Newton’s work remains to be explored even today.
(Like Derrida’ s 1966 lecture when he tried to give a tribute to Strauss. Ended up questioning the very assumptions of Strauss’ thought)
How does the historian of science reconsititute knowledge then?
The historian of science needs to perceive events (The inventions and discoveries list, the social history of scientific catalogues) as evidence to reconstitute the processes at work.
A Deleuzian analogy was used here. The historian of science sees “the spots on the surface” But when the historian digs deeper, she reached crossroads and needs to consciously choose trajectories that she can best justify. Here is where the subjectivity of the historian comes into play (including theoretical preferences).
The historian must be aware of theory as an illusory unification that gives wholeness to the visible and ill fitting parts.
(The analogy of the arc of a circle was used. The arc becomes cognitively identifiable and useful only if the illusion of the circle is conceptualized. It is this activity that a critical historian of science would engage in)
The historian must be beware of the possibility of constituting speculative evidence.
Example :The Indian Philosopher Kanika was aware of the potential of the atom. (Sphota model) But can the historian of science who is writing the story of nuclear physics in the 19th century use this information? No. Because the association is nearly impossible to support with evidence (as far as we know now).
The historian of science , must work with “an absent cause” ( Analogy: The historian does not even have the smoke but only the ash to work with, fire needs to be re raked). Must abandon the idea of writing the “one “ true story of the history of science.
Standard Questions asked in MPhil/PhD Vivas
1. What is your research question?
2. What is your methodology?
3. How does your research methodology justify your research question?
4. Why did you do this research?-Research gap
5. Do your research question and methodology reflect in the title? How?
6. Why did you choose these films/these photographs/this institution/text for study? (The answer should come from the nature of research question and not person choice, preference, or guide suggested etc.)
7. Justification for methodology. Why did you chose this method/methodology and not another one?
8. Why didn't you chose Indian texts /films?
2. What is your methodology?
3. How does your research methodology justify your research question?
4. Why did you do this research?-Research gap
5. Do your research question and methodology reflect in the title? How?
6. Why did you choose these films/these photographs/this institution/text for study? (The answer should come from the nature of research question and not person choice, preference, or guide suggested etc.)
7. Justification for methodology. Why did you chose this method/methodology and not another one?
8. Why didn't you chose Indian texts /films?
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Ecological Crises, Digital Humanities and New Political Assemblies--Lecture Notes
Following notes are by Ann Mary of Bruno Latour's talk on 23 March at, National Gallery of Modern Art, Bangalore on "Ecological Crises, Digital Humanities and New Political Assemblies"
-----------------
If an ecological debate occurs, it usually goes along the lines of “Nature” versus “technology”, “Humans” versus “The Planet” and so on.
This is because it is the “legitimate” (or the outsider’s) way of looking at the debate.This way of making sense of the issue stems from an unfamiliarity with practices of science.
(For example : In the climate gate fiasco of 2009, a big fuss was created over emails sent between scientists. To the extent that things were said along the lines of “Global warming is a conspiracy”. But for people who practice say, theoretical physics, it is a perfectly normal thing to produce “fact” based on email exchange)
These are a few myths he discussed:
1. That knowledge is produced in a scientific field as fact with no value.
2. There is an institution which decides the conditions under which truth can be produced in a scientific field.(Unlike “pure sciences”, law is an instance where the institution provides or sanctions “legal truths”)
To locate where these myths come, Latour looks at the core concept of Modern and its association with Nature. Both of these are associated with West.
The sanction for “the truth” of science comes from the concept of a Modern West.The locus of the Modern is the progress of reason over Nature, something which was the basis for the whole idea of studying other “cultures”.
Latour turns around this anthropology onto the modern itself.Latour questions the notion that “Nature” was a politically free category of fact finding which the modern Westerner engaged in. He states that within the practices of science, it becomes more obvious that there was no unique “natural” entity that could be studied without value judgements.
If Western “Modern” s basic assumption is called into question in practices, then how can we start making sense of entities by locating them within their “modes of existence”?(he isn’t referring to just physical objects, but concepts which have a legitimate way of being understood within their institutions : For example : Law and legal truths must be understood with reference to the conditions which sanction their legality,viz. the institution of law).
If Nature ceases to be the terrain where “objects” of study could be taken up, then how do we study and solve questions like ecological crises? In a debate on ecological crisis, it can no longer be said that “Nature” is the mediator of the debate.
Latour creates a project called Digital Humanities where ecological concerns must and can talk in the differences that exist at the levels in which groups/individuals have understood the “Modern” . The debate must threaten the “modernizing” project by calling into question the differences in the experience of modernity in practice.
(The whole lecture sounded like cultural studies in science. And when he was talking about diplomacy and resolution, U R Ananthamurthy mentioned another sense of conflict resol from Indian traditions. That the word “Upaya” meant “Tactic” with a sense of coming closer and also “metaphor”. Not a complete closure like the usual translation “Solution” suggests )
If anyone remembers what he said about the truth conditions of religion, please please do type it out here. I have been trying to remember desperately. He said something that the truth conditions for religion( I dont know if he was talking of Catholicism) was something..... about belief or human nature)
-----------------
If an ecological debate occurs, it usually goes along the lines of “Nature” versus “technology”, “Humans” versus “The Planet” and so on.
This is because it is the “legitimate” (or the outsider’s) way of looking at the debate.This way of making sense of the issue stems from an unfamiliarity with practices of science.
(For example : In the climate gate fiasco of 2009, a big fuss was created over emails sent between scientists. To the extent that things were said along the lines of “Global warming is a conspiracy”. But for people who practice say, theoretical physics, it is a perfectly normal thing to produce “fact” based on email exchange)
These are a few myths he discussed:
1. That knowledge is produced in a scientific field as fact with no value.
2. There is an institution which decides the conditions under which truth can be produced in a scientific field.(Unlike “pure sciences”, law is an instance where the institution provides or sanctions “legal truths”)
To locate where these myths come, Latour looks at the core concept of Modern and its association with Nature. Both of these are associated with West.
The sanction for “the truth” of science comes from the concept of a Modern West.The locus of the Modern is the progress of reason over Nature, something which was the basis for the whole idea of studying other “cultures”.
Latour turns around this anthropology onto the modern itself.Latour questions the notion that “Nature” was a politically free category of fact finding which the modern Westerner engaged in. He states that within the practices of science, it becomes more obvious that there was no unique “natural” entity that could be studied without value judgements.
If Western “Modern” s basic assumption is called into question in practices, then how can we start making sense of entities by locating them within their “modes of existence”?(he isn’t referring to just physical objects, but concepts which have a legitimate way of being understood within their institutions : For example : Law and legal truths must be understood with reference to the conditions which sanction their legality,viz. the institution of law).
If Nature ceases to be the terrain where “objects” of study could be taken up, then how do we study and solve questions like ecological crises? In a debate on ecological crisis, it can no longer be said that “Nature” is the mediator of the debate.
Latour creates a project called Digital Humanities where ecological concerns must and can talk in the differences that exist at the levels in which groups/individuals have understood the “Modern” . The debate must threaten the “modernizing” project by calling into question the differences in the experience of modernity in practice.
(The whole lecture sounded like cultural studies in science. And when he was talking about diplomacy and resolution, U R Ananthamurthy mentioned another sense of conflict resol from Indian traditions. That the word “Upaya” meant “Tactic” with a sense of coming closer and also “metaphor”. Not a complete closure like the usual translation “Solution” suggests )
If anyone remembers what he said about the truth conditions of religion, please please do type it out here. I have been trying to remember desperately. He said something that the truth conditions for religion( I dont know if he was talking of Catholicism) was something..... about belief or human nature)
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Topic/Thesis Statement/Hypothesis/Research Problem
Topic: It clarifies area. It does not indicate method of research
Thesis statement: Will emerge after literature.
Hypothesis: Assumption based on which you are doing your research in your research area
Research problem: What you are researching.
Monday, April 09, 2012
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
Sunday, April 01, 2012
Friday, March 30, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate is a national effort aimed at strengthening the education doctorate, Ed.D. | The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
National Conference on Interweaving Texts and Contexts – Pedagogical Strategies
Organised by Dept of Studies and Research in English
Tumkur
University, Tumkur Karntaka
30 April 2012
About
The Conference
It
is evident that a work of art earlier was examined in vacuum. But the
work of art has now evolved to attain a new nomenclature “Text”.
Thanks to the various insights contributed by theorists across the
world, the idea of Text in the recent developments in the theory of
textuality from Barthes to Belsey has posed challenges to the way
literary and non-literary texts are studied. In the light of this
debate, the Conference proposes to examine the possibility of a
preeminent context around a text or a context that assumes its shape
circumstantially.
Objectives
of the Conference
- To explore new critical idioms for the evaluation and reading of literary and non-literary texts
- To develop various perspectives for reading literatures
- To showcase and engage with new research which has been reflecting on these themes
Sub-themes
of the Conference
- Traditional approaches to text
- Textuality of History, History of Textuality
- Transition from Work to Text
- Text and Context
- Textuality as a research method
Call
for papers
Interested participants are
invited to present papers on any of the themes mentioned above. The
full papers and not the abstracts of the papers shall reach us by
20th April 2012, to the email id tuteng2011@gmail.com
to facilitate the publication and release of the proceedings (with
ISBN) on the day of the Conference.
Guidelines
for Paper Submission
- The entire paper must be in MS-Word document format.
- The length of the paper should not exceed 10 pages.
- Times New Roman 12 font, 1.5 line space and 1-inch margin all around.
- Send one hard copy and one soft copy of the paper to the Conference Convener.
- The papers will be evaluated on the basis of originality, research content, conceptual clarity, methodology, and presentation skills.
- Editorial Committee has the authority to review and select the papers for ISBN edited book.
Delegation
Fee
Delegates
|
Registration
Fee
|
| Academics and Research Scholars | Rs 400/- |
| Students | Rs 100/- |
The
Registration fee may be paid on the spot.
For
further details contact
Organizing
Secretary
Department
of Studies and Research in English
Dr.
P Sadnanda Maiya Block
Tumkur
University, Campus
B.H.Road,
Tumkur – 572103, Karnataka
E-mail-ID:
tuteng2011 AT gmail.com
Phone:
9900359280
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Academic Research and Conference Platfroms
1. Research Gatehttp://www.researchgate.net/
2. Research Gate Conferences http://www.researchgate.net/conferences/
3. Conference Alerts: http://www.conferencealerts.com/
4. Conference Alerts--India: http://www.conferencealerts.com/india.htm
5. Mendeley http://www.mendeley.com/
6. Academia.edu http://academia.edu/
7. Citeulike http://www.citeulike.org/
8. esocialsciences http://esocialsciences.org/Home/Index.aspx
Other
1. Papers: http://www.mekentosj.com/papers/
2. Epernicus https://www.epernicus.com/
3. Zetero http://www.zotero.org/
4. Quartzy http://www.quartzy.com/1/
5. My Science http://www.myscience.ch/
6.
2. Research Gate Conferences http://www.researchgate.net/conferences/
3. Conference Alerts: http://www.conferencealerts.com/
4. Conference Alerts--India: http://www.conferencealerts.com/india.htm
5. Mendeley http://www.mendeley.com/
6. Academia.edu http://academia.edu/
7. Citeulike http://www.citeulike.org/
8. esocialsciences http://esocialsciences.org/Home/Index.aspx
Other
1. Papers: http://www.mekentosj.com/papers/
2. Epernicus https://www.epernicus.com/
3. Zetero http://www.zotero.org/
4. Quartzy http://www.quartzy.com/1/
5. My Science http://www.myscience.ch/
6.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
National Seminar on Scripts ad Languages in Modern India with Special Reference to Konkani-- A Report
A two-day National
Seminar organised by Jagotik Konknni Songhotton on “Scripts ad Languages in
Modern India with Special Reference to Konkani” was held on March 10 and 11,
2012 at Kalangann, Mangalore.
In his
introduction to the seminar, General Secretary of Jagotik Konknni Songhotton,
Eric Ozario clarified the official opposition of JKS that JKS was against the
unilateral imposition of a single script on Konkani speaking people of all
regions. He said that JKS was for recognition of all scripts but should there
be a need for a single script for official reasons then the decision should be
a democratic one. He said monoculture in the context of language and script of
Konkani smacks of fascism. According to him one of the mail purposes of the
seminar was to deliberate on the survival of Konakni in the globalisation
context with reference to the scripts being used.
The keynote of
the seminar was delivered by Valerian Rodrigues, Professor, Centre for
Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University ,
New Delhi
Speaking on
“Script and Language: Relationship and Contentions” Anvita Abbi, Professor of
Linguistics, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi dwelt on the relationship
between script and cultures with a contrast between scripts found in India with
those of Europe, Egypt and China. She said all the scripts evolved in India India
The last
programme of the day was presentation of the play Tulsi. The play was written by Arun Raj Rodrigues based on the
novel by Ravindra Kelekar of the same name, directed Christopher, Ninasm and
presented by Kalakul Repertory, Mangalore
On the second
day, Alok Rai, Professor of English, Delhi
University spoke on “Language, Script
and Dominance in India
Asha Sarangi,
Centre for Political Studies, New
Delhi India Mangalore University
Madhavi
Sardesai, Department of Konkani, University
of Goa Christ University ,
Bangalore
Barbara Roeber
from Germany America in the
context of the Cherokee, the Aleutian, and the Cree languages, and in Asia
languages of Azerbaijan , Uzbekistan , Turmenistan, and Thai.
Pratapananda
Naik, Director, Thomas Stephens Konkkni Kendr, Goa ,
spoke on “The Case for Multi-scripts in Konkani.” He presented a brief history
of Konkani language with reference to scripts. He dismissed the claim that
Kannada was adapted in Karnataka by the migrated Konkani people. He gave examples
of text written in Goa in Kannada script in
the seventeenth century. According to him while Konkani is written five
scripts, in Goa until 1961 Konkani meant
Konkani in Roman script. He gave the statistics of statewise population of
Konkani speaking people, scriptwise distribution of periodicals, which showed a
vibrant print culture in Kannada script and statewise status of Konkani. He
mentioned that because of the imposition of Nagari script over Konkani in Goa , the Konkani schools were losing out to English
medium schools. Hence he made a case for multi-script arguing for the use of
script in a particular place depending on the extent of its usage. He said
different scripts in turn represent many dialects, which can be preserved only
through multi-scripts, emotional affinity, non-commercial dimension, education,
use of scripts, primacy of spoken dialects over script to unite people,
betrayal of Nagari script users by joining Marathi, politics of award in single
script, lack of demand for single script from users other than Nagari proponents,
non-acceptance of Nagari by the Hindus, popularity of Roman script despite lack
of state patronage, preservation of democratic aspirations, equation between
Aryan, Brahmin, Sanskrit and Nagari script were the other reasons given by him
against imposition of single script.
In his concluding speech, Prof. Rodrigues drew
attention to the majoritarian politics marginalising a vast population in India
At the suggestion of Anvita Abbi, General
Secretary of JSK, Eric Ozario proposed the resolution to request Sahitya
Akademi to consider all scripts equally for awards. The Seminar passed the
resolution with voice vote.
Mr Ozario in his closing remarks said that
the next course of action would be to bring all the parties concerned with the
script issues on one platform to deliberate on the issue of script and come to
a collective decision through democratic process.
Certificates were distributed to all the
participants along with copies of Vazram
Mothiam CD.
Anil
Pinto
The audio recording of the seminar presentations and discussions by Miguel Braganza can be found by clicking here.
The Last Great Devadasi | OPEN Magazine
The Last Great Devadasi | OPEN Magazine: "Balasaraswati: Her Art and Life | Douglas M Knight Jr | Tranquebar Press | 350 + 16 pages B&W Photo insert | Rs 599"
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Myth Today--Discussion Board
Dear III BA English Honours Cultural Studies course participants, you may post your questions and comments on Barthes' "Myth Today" in the comments section below.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
National Seminar on Feminism in India: Emerging Trends and Issues: Call for Papers National Seminar on Feminism in India: Emerging Trends and Issues: Call for Papers National Seminar on Feminism in India: Emerging Trends and Issues: Call for Papers
The Department of English of Shri Shankaracharya Mahavidyalaya Sector-6 Bhilai (Chhattisgarh) is organizing a Two-day UGC Sponsored National Seminar on Feminism in India: Emerging Trends and Issues (FIETI 2012). This seminar offers a common platform for English professionals to come together for a fruitful interaction on the future of woman in society,which is at the heart of a radical movement striving to create a brave new world for woman.
Date: 4 - 5 March 2012
Please send in your abstract in about 150-200 words on or before 20 February 2012 and full length papers in about 1500-2000 words on 4 March 2012 as per latest MLA style sheet to be published in the proceedings after the seminar to fieti2012@gmail.com. TA for attending the seminar will be given to suitable candidates only.
For further information please contact:
Dr. Rahul Mene
HoD English and Convener
09893215097
Friday, February 17, 2012
Walter Benjamin- The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction- Section 9
Walter Benjamin- The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1936)
Discussion on section 9
Shift from painting to photography, theatre to movies. Photography isnt just an extension of painting: Aura is lost in this process, and we think certain dynamics are inherent to these mediums, but not necessarily so, and these dynamics maybe inherent to milieu in which it worked out instead. Medium has something inherent to it and when you move from it, something changes to it.
Eg: Digital Classroom course by Pinto and CSCS- studied how education has changed and is changing with introduction of technology.
Eg: Tagore tried to remove 4 walls of classroom but still there was only 1 knower. Now with tech, its no more about 1 to many but from many to many.
Eg: Blackboard evolution: from writing on sand, to slate, to blackboard, to OHP/ computer/ white board... and sometimes all at the same time. And on computer itself you can keep shifting screens from wikipedia, to youtube, etc. Eg: with online couses (like Pinto‘s Masters course or my certificate course), people can chat on other things other than the course and no one will know, due to multiple windows.
So what is role of teacher now?
So, what is the thing that if you remove, the whole thing will collapse. Eg: if you breathe pure oxygen, you wont survive, but if u remove oxygen from the mixture then you will die!
So in education, teacher is most important- you can have a building without students and it will still be an educational institution.
So teacher is a function. Teacher has to certify, they can fail or pass students. No office staff can do this, you can have them arrested.
But can computer decide pass fail? Eg: with multiple choice exams.
So yes, then teacher function is gone.
New model coming in education, where it doesn’t matter if u went to school/ college or not, or where you went to study, as long as you complete your national exam. Eg: in computers and medicine
All poets and philosophers, until Renaissance, were warriors- Plato’s uncle had to give him bail. With Romantic age, they could be full time poets.
All poets and philosophers, until Renaissance, were warriors- Plato’s uncle had to give him bail. With Romantic age, they could be full time poets.
Section 10
Benjamin moves to spaces, other objects, and the mechanical representations
of the same (painting to photo, etc). So if photography takes the place of
representing image, cinema takes job of represrntaing moving image. Not that
the former disappears, but something happens to the former. So painting goes
abstract. In India, painting was never (?) representative of reality, except
with Ravi Vama. In Europe, it was achieved with Rembrandt. With Monet, began
communicating emptions, expressions, etc. With camera, painting goes abstract-
eg: Cubism, Dali- because now camera will do it for you.
Similar with cinema and theatre. In theatre after cinema, there now arose a
specialised role of the director, who gave his interpretation of the text,
which neednt be the authorial interpretation of the text. Playrights no more
direct their plays. Eg: Karnad wont direct his plays, he doesnt want to impose
their views on their work.
Thus now, a critic is born. Point is no more about what the author said,
but what the critic said.
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Monday, February 06, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
III BA English Honours HEN652 Cultural Studies CIA 3
CIA3 criteria.
10 Marks: Structure of research paper - Abstract (about 150 words), introduction, locating research question in the existing body of knowledge, exploring the research problem using the cultural site given (e.g. Jaipur literary festival is a context), conclusion, works cited (MLA style), in-text citation. + Sharing of paper with all (2 marks)
10 marks: logical development of the research problem, rigor of the exploration of research question. logical flow of conclusions based on the exploration and analysis.
Other guidelines
Last date for sharing the complete paper with the course instructor and coursemates: 10 Feb 2012 (IST 24 Hrs)
Length of the paper: 5-7 pages, including works cited section.
The paper needs to be shared with all the coursemates.
The should be either in google doc format. Please avoid uploading the word document.
Please use times new Roman, 12 font with double line space, including between paragraphs. Indent the first line of new paragraphs.
Please write your name and register number at the left hand top corner of the first page.
File name: HEN652+_+Title of the paper+_+ your name.
Please do comment on other's papers once they are shared.
(PS: Please be nice and kind to me in the next class, as always :-))
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)