Della nozione di “filosofia virtuale” e degli altri strumenti ermeneutici​​​ messi a punto da Livio Rossetti per ripensare i presocratici

This study assessed the extension activities of Agricultural Media Resources and Extension Centre (AMREC) of University of Agriculture Abeokuta, Ogun State. Five villages that were in active collaboration with the centre were targeted. Ten percent (10%) of registered farmers were selected from each village given the sample size of 170 respondents. Data based on respondents awareness and participation in the extension activities of AMREC were collected through structured questionnaire and analysis was done using both descriptive and inferential statistics. The study revealed that 69.6% of the respondents were between 31-50years of age, 68.3% were males, 88.8% were married and 62.7% of the respondents have one form of education or the other. Majority (82.6%) were full time farmers with 44.7% cultivating 1-2hectares while 95.0% had technical background before the inception of AMREC in the area. Greater percentage (59.0%) of the respondents had been having contacts with extension agents once in 2 weeks. All the respondents were aware of AMREC research activities but 95% had more awareness on market research. Respondents were aware of extension services of AMREC more than research activities and almost all the respondents were aware of input supply services of AMREC. Meanwhile, participation of respondents in research activities of AMREC was occasional while that of extension and input supply activities was regular. There is significant relationship between gender, marital status, level of education and level of participation in AMREC activities (χ2= 20.31, p<0.05; χ2= 6.92, p<0.05 and χ2= 21.58, p< 0.05). Positive relationship exists between respondents’ awareness of all AMREC activities and participation in the extension activities. It can be concluded that most of the participants in AMREC activities were small scale farmers and their awareness and participation in AMREC extension and input supply activities were more than research activities. More female farmers and farmers with large hectares of land should be involved. Also, AMREC should ensure that their research work is disseminated to all farmers within their coverage areas irrespective of the specific target audience.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/suslj.v12i1.6990 Sabaragamuwa University Journal 2013; V. 12 No. 1 pp 41-51

The present study has made an attempt to identify the funding sources for universities to conduct research and extension activities, satisfaction level towards the receipt of these funds and has also highlighted different financial constraints in carrying out research and extension activities in four universities of North India. The study concluded that university or institute fund was the major funding source followed by funding bodies like ICAR, DST, DBT etc. for research and extension activities in the universities. Further, the scientists and extensionists were satisfied with the university and central government funds, while they were partly satisfied with the funding support from patent and copyrights, loans and credits and non-competitive grants for conducting research and extension activities in the universities. The study also revealed that, lack of public private partnership and irregular/untimely budget receipt were the major constraints, followed by paucity of budget and lack of incentives for the research and extension activities. Hence, there is an urgent need to reorient the research and extension system, so that funds can be procured and utilized effectively for the benefit of farming community in livestock sector. Further, to strengthen research and extension of livestock technologies, there is a need to find suitable solutions for the constraints faced by the professionals and simplify the procedure so that they can opt for need based appropriate research and extension activities.

Concern about the relevance of work carried on by agricultural economists probably began three-quarters of a century ago with the appointment of Henry C. Taylor as the first professor of agricultural economics in a land grant institution. The dialogue has continued with changing emphasis during periods of depression, war years, overproduction, and structural changes in the production sector resulting from the historic migration of farm workers to urban centers and out of agricultural employment. Castle in 1970 warned that flexibility in organizational structure of research and extension activities would be necessary if programs were to have great relevance to fast changing and nonstatic problems. Johnson's scholarly address to the American Agricultural Economics Association in 1971 argued that agricultural economics is not dead or dying just because problems of the 1970s are different from those of a decade ago. Grove, Crockett, and Narrie elicited spirited viewpoints in their comments and replies regarding irrelevance as viewed by professional agricultural economists. With regard to work relevant to the economic problems of commercial agriculture, Castle correctly stated that studies on the farm firm and nonfarm firm, performance of the industry, and commercial agricultural policy are areas of study experiencing the greatest decline as public concern and intellectual excitement are being generated elsewhere (p. 832). To explore further the opinion of Castle and to provide myself with an updated view of relevance of university research and extension activities in agricultural economics to agribusiness firms, I surveyed the chairman of each department of agricultural economics at land grant universities in our nation. In addition, either by letter or by telephone, I requested viewpoints and opinions from administrators of land grant institutions, as well as a large number of economists employed by agribusiness firms, trade associations that are agricultural in nature, and farm organizations. Responses received were most helpful in broadening my understanding and knowledge of present programs and activities. In some instances, the information was sketchy and far from complete. From others, great pains were made to give detailed facts on all research and extension activities as well as on the interrelationships of the teaching function with the other two. Interpretations and conclusions reached from study of this mass of information are totally my responsibility and an honest effort to bring into focus relevance to agribusiness firms as I see it. In performing this chore, I do so as one who at one time wore the research and teaching hat at a land grant university. Moreover, my longer tenure has been as director of economic research for a major regional farmer cooperative. This paper has five major purposes: to examine the direct and indirect benefits to agribusiness firms from better informed agricultural producers, to present views on types of university research and extension activities that should be emphasized, to discuss possible conflicts that exist between university activities and the programs of agribusiness firms, to explore the potentials and problems of joint university-firm research activities, and to bring into focus the viewpoint of agribusiness firms regarding the relevance of university research and extension programs.

IN THE LAST TWENTY-FIVE YEARS economists and sociologists have shown growing interest in the interrelationships within the family business management situation by pertinent research and extension activities, especially those dealing with family farms. Awareness of the significance of the farm family to the farm business has also been developing in the agricultural sector of the business community. This article takes stock of progress made in understanding farm-home interrelationships in decision-making and proposes an interdisciplinary approach for basic research on both the events of decision-making and acting upon the decisions. This investigation also has significance for decision-making and action in non-farm family business situations. To be specific, our principal objectives here are (a) to review and evaluate extension and research activities in farm and home interrelation-

Este trabalho revela as percepções dos egressos do grupo Conexão de Saberes em Física e Popularização da Ciência, tanto do ponto de vista das contribuições para a formação enquanto graduando e profissional, quanto para os objetivos do programa de educação tutorial (PET). Desde sua criação em 2010 na Unifei-Itabira, o grupo desenvolve atividades de ensino, pesquisa e extensão na universidade e comunidade de Itabira e região. O objetivo é mostrar de forma qualitativa e quantitativa as contribuições do PET na vida do egresso. Esta investigação foi feita por meio de pesquisa realizada via formulário eletrônico. Os resultados mostram alta contribuição quanto à formação crítica e acadêmica, contribuição social, estímulo à docência e profissional. Mostram ainda que acima de 90% dos egressos estão inseridos do mercado de trabalho e 50% continuam estudando. As atividades desenvolvidas pelo grupo contribuem de forma significativa para a formação dos alunos, desenvolvem liderança, oratória, criatividade e altruísmo. Além disso, devido às diversas atividades extensionistas e ensino envolvendo a comunidade, o programa de educação tutorial traz outros benefícios para a universidade, como sua exposição positiva perante a sociedade.

Robert Sternberg presents his view on the crisis in psychology, which he argues is the increasing concentration of researchers on negligible problems, underestimation of creativity and an award system that favors criticism. Known for his contributions to theories on creativity, wisdom and thinking styles, Sternberg believes that researchers should find a better balance in the creative, analytical, practical and wise aspects of the scientific endeavor. He breaks down key statements made in Steven Pinker’s latest books, refers to unethical practices of psychologists improving interrogation methods and critically assesses the implementation of his primary mission to change the way people think about intelligence and the means of measuring it. Sternberg reflects on his greatest achievements, the questions and challenges facing psychology and the vision of its future. The chapter includes Sternberg’s biographical data, research activity and advice to young psychologists.

Reviewed by: Letting Stories Breathe: A Socio-Narratology Jarmila Mildorf (bio) Arthur W. Frank. Letting Stories Breathe: A Socio-Narratology. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2010. 209 pp. ISBN 978-0226260136, $25.00. Narrative research seems to have proliferated exponentially over the last two decades. The vast number of international collections of essays and monographs in the last three to four years alone attests to scholars’ unbroken, if not heightened, interest in narrative—across a range of disciplines that pose different research questions (consider, for example, Alber & Fludernik; Eakin; Heinen & Sommer; Herman, Basic Elements; Hyvärinen, Mikkonen & Mildorf; Hyvärinen, Hydén, Saarheimo & Tamboukou; Klein & Martínez; and Schiffrin, de Fina & Nylund). Given this research activity, one legitimate question is: If a new book is published, does it tell us anything innovative about narrative or about how we can/ought to deal with narrative? In other words, does the book offer new perspectives in the areas of narrative theory or narrative analysis? Arthur W. Frank’s latest book, Letting Stories Breathe: A Socio-Narratology, claims to do both: Frank proposes a new theoretical approach, “socio-narratology,” and a method, “dialogical narrative analysis.” The main aim of this combined approach is to ask “what stories do” (2) rather than what stories are: “The emphasis is on watching them act, not seeking their essence” (21). One central metaphor used by Frank in this regard is that stories “breathe”—that is, they “animate human life” (3), they are “actors” (13) that shape social life and human thinking, and they “become humans’ companions” (43) in the sense that people grow up on stories, which have the power to work on people’s minds, yes, even to become their life models. “Many people are living ‘just like a story,’” Frank writes, and he further claims that stories are “the source of all values” (69). At first glance, such statements seem to convey ideas that we intuitively feel must be right. And many of Frank’s ideas do sound convincing—not least because of Frank’s knack for using imagery that creates accessible and memorable pictures in readers’ minds. The only problem is that these ideas are not new, nor are they entirely uncontroversial. Let me begin by pointing out some technical problems with Frank’s book, before I move on to a more detailed discussion of his arguments. Frank defines the term “socio-narratology” as an expansion of “the study of literary narratives—NARRATOLOGY—to consider the fullest range of storytelling, from folklore to everyday conversation” (12; caps in original). This definition misconstrues narratology, which has for quite some time now broadened its agenda to include more than “just” literary narratives. In fact, the very term “socionarratology” was first used by David Herman in his 1999 article “Toward a Socionarratology: New Ways of Analyzing Natural-Language Narratives.” Had Frank taken this article into account (the only reference to Herman is to his introduction to the Cambridge Companion to [End Page 833] Narrative ), he may have noticed that Herman laid out a rather distinct sub-discipline of the so-called “postclassical narratologies,” which was to attend to formal, contextual, and cognitive factors, combining narratological analysis with sociolinguistic and conversation-analytic methods. Frank’s use of the term “socio-narratology” is particularly unfortunate since his own approach is as far removed from narratology and its main tenets as could be. Narratology has traditionally been concerned with a) the question of what constitutes narrative, and b) the formal features of narrative. Frank’s variant of “socio-narratology” instead “dispenses with the baggage of seeking any formal underlying model of competence” (13), and refuses to offer a definition of stories (21), thereby debunking two points so central to narratology. The term “socio-narratology” thus is a misnomer that misleads scholars potentially interested in narratological developments. Instead of a definition of narrative, Frank offers a “working understanding” —“one thing happens in consequence of another” (25, italics original)—and he then focuses on the “capacities of stories” to delineate what narratives are (27–44). Some of these capacities are that stories deal with trouble but potentially also cause trouble, they “display and test people’s character” (29), present a certain perspective...

The aim of this study was to describe the profile of Physical Education (PE) teachers working at the Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology Sul-rio-grandense, identifying sociodemographic data, qualification process and complementary training. A self-administered questionnaire was done with the subjects, and data from the Transparency Portal and from Lattes Curriculum was used. The data was presented based on the distribution of relative frequencies, absolute, and their respective confidence intervals (95%). The statistical program used was the PSPP. Thirty-five teachers participated in the study, and as a result, we consider the years of performance in the institution, 14 of them were in the first years of service, 15 in the intermediate years and six in the final years. The results showed that teachers in the early and intermediate years of work are more involved in research and extension activities, as well as training courses and scientific events. We conclude that despite the teaching requirement that suggest research and extension activities, the working emphasis falls on the teaching activities. We highlight that although the reduced performance in research and extension activities, it is seen as a qualified teaching group that keeps seeking for professional qualification.

Cynthia Dillard’s ideas of research and pedagogical methodologies have arrived again and they do not disappoint. In her latest book, Learning to (Re)member the Things We’ve Learned to Forget: Endar...

Reviewed by: Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education Frank H. T. Rhodes Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education. By Derek Bok. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 2003. Pp. xi + 231. $22.95. "On a sunny afternoon in 1852, two groups of oarsmen—one from Harvard and one from Yale—raced against each other on Lake Winnepesaukee. The students [End Page 457] may not have known it, but they were participating in the first intercollegiate sports contest in the United States. Even then, although there were no paying spectators or television crews, the event had definite commercial overtones. The race was the brainchild of a railroad owner and real estate developer who hoped to attract the public's attention to the charms of Southern New Hampshire by staging an athletic spectacle. With calculating shrewdness, he lured the athletes to compete by offering to pay all their expenses and supply them with "lavish prizes" and "unlimited alcohol" (35). From this modest beginning, Derek Bok reports, have sprung not only intercollegiate athletics, with their big-time football and basketball, but also the wider commercialization of American higher education. And the effects of that transformation have been far-reaching. Corporate partnerships, institutional marketing, brand image, strategic alliances, for-profit ventures, faculty entrepreneurism, targeted outreach, patent licensing, creative sponsorship, intellectual incubators—these are the terms of relationship heard more and more frequently in the academic halls of power. Universities, some fear, are not only in the marketplace; they have become a new sector of the marketplace. It is this concern that Bok describes and analyzes in his latest book, Universities in the Marketplace. Universities, Bok observes, now provide the three essential ingredients of international growth and national prosperity: highly trained specialists, expert knowledge, and science-based technology. Knowledge—once arcane—has become a valuable commodity. What is new about this wave of commercial engagement by universities, Bok argues, is not its existence, but its size and scope. A century ago, the University of Chicago was advertising to attract students, Penn had a bureau of publicity, and many institutions supported correspondence schools and extension programs. But now commercialization underlies scores of activities, as institutions seek to make a profit from their teaching, research, and other activities, including not least their athletic programs. Lucrative consulting contracts, for both individual faculty and the university itself, are commonplace, while for-profit distance learning programs have sprung up at almost every institution. What accounts for this surge in commercial activity during the past quarter-century? Bok argues persuasively that there are multiple causes: increasing competition for leading faculty, competition from media rankings of universities, the development of new marketable technologies, reductions in state and federal government funding, a lack of clarity about academic values and priorities, and a host of money-making opportunities in continuing education have all played a role. But the biggest factor, Bok argues, has been the characteristic that universities share with compulsive gamblers and exiled royalty: there is never enough money to satisfy their desires. This is a "chronic condition of American universities, a condition inherent in the nature of the institution." But, granted commercialization exists, is it a threat? Or is it, rather, simply a fact of current academic life, more or less neutral in its effects and benign in its influence? Bok argues that the effects of the marketplace are neither consistently [End Page 458] useful, nor wholly irrelevant in trying to improve the performance of research universities. But, he warns, the development of big-time intercollegiate athletics illustrates how far the corrosive influence of commercialization can go, with skyboxes, million-dollar contracts for coaches, year-round training regimens of near-professional rigor for athletes, huge squads of scholarship-indentured, subsidized athletes, whose graduation rates in some sports are a scandal, together with questionable admission policies and shadowy activities of armies of individual boosters and sponsors. That, alas, is not an inaccurate picture of the situation on some of the largest campuses. Scientific research, corporate partnerships, and technology transfer represent newer areas of commercialization. Although the worst predictions and alarms heard a quarter-century ago generally have not materialized, and industrial collaboration has produced some notable benefits (the Research...

One need only occasionally read the newspaper or even casually follow developments in US health policy to know that now, as never before, medical research and its results dominate both popular imagination and the national economy. The latest book by ethicist Daniel Callahan, What price better health: hazards of the research imperative, explores many of the most important ethical issues that flow from the nation’s medical research enterprise. In an age of seemingly limitless opportunities for scientific breakthrough on the one hand and unsettling evidence of research abuse on the other, the book offers clinical researchers an important ethical guide. Callahan, Director of the International Program at the Hastings Center and Senior Fellow at the Harvard Medical School, is well known in the field of bioethics, particularly for his writings on health care rationing, religion and bioethics, and the bioethical issues that arise in an aging society. Here Callahan examines what he terms the “research imperative,” which he defines as the “felt drive to use research to gain various forms of knowledge for its own sake, or as a motive to achieve a worthy practical end,” and its implications for a host of issues, ranging from biomedical research policy priorities to research on human subjects and research integrity. A great admirer of medical research, Callahan nonetheless recognizes the research imperative as a phenomenon that can both benefit and imperil society. For this reason, he argues, medical research should rest on a base of certain “animating ideals,” which he identifies as safety, social beneficence, resistance to market determination, compatibility with sustainable, affordable medicine and equitable access to health care, and public moral acceptance. Callahan begins by briefly chronicling the history of research in the US and how a “trajectory of research goals” came to embody a research imperative. He goes on to explore the scientific foundation of medical research and both the “societal obligations” of scientists and recent threats to scientific integrity. This section is especially timely, exploring such developments as the elevation of research and researchers to popular media status, intimidation of researchers, and conflict of interest. Callahan explores how research can best deal with and balance two longstanding concerns: forestalling death and relieving the burdens of aging. He considers the goals of medicine and explores the question of whether research should focus on classic, medically oriented concerns of disease prevention and treatment or should reach more broadly into the world of enhancement of human physical and psychological traits. He examines the intertwined issues of risk/benefit analysis, research involving human subjects (a particularly strong chapter), and the problem of research methods that raise significant moral questions. Later chapters explore public policy matters stemming from both privately and publicly funded medical research activities. Most satisfying, perhaps, is Callahan’s examination of privately funded pharmaceutical research and the twin areas of concern it engenders: privately held property interests that preclude broader national and global benefits and the high cost of pharmaceutical products. The book’s final chapter is devoted to a discussion of how to more closely align medical research with the ideals identified in the Introduction. The book suffers from two basic limitations. The first is its failure to address at all the closely associated subject of health services research, especially research involving programs for the poor. Beginning under the Clinton administration more than a decade ago, federal and state policymakers, have, in the name of research, embarked upon scores of federally funded “demonstrations” whose only true research aim can be said to be testing the impact on the poorest members of society of significant reductions in subsistence payments and public health insurance, most notably Medicaid. Callahan raises many important considerations, in particular the need for unswerving allegiance to the concept of voluntary participation and informed consent. Indeed, in welfare demonstrations, participation is compelled as a condition of assistance. It is hard to imagine a less worthy goal of research than testing the effects of deprivation on the poor, and yet the bioethics community in general has been AWOL on this matter. The other limitation has to do with the book’s style. Daniel Callahan is one of the nation’s best-known bioethicists, but he feels a need to regularly remind readers of this fact, through excessive use of the word “I” and frequent references to the important public figures in his life. In addition, Callahan, as an ethicist, should have taken some care to avoid using turns of phrase that, though cliched, have some negative resonance in specific communities. For example, in the Acknowledgments, Callahan thanks his secretary for performing “the worst kind of stoop labor” in connection with the production of the book manuscript. This reference is somewhat jarring, particularly for any reader who has seen and worked with migrant laborers as they have stooped over in fields. This use of inappropriate imagery lends a strange aura to an otherwise insightful book on research ethics.

How Does Novelty Emerge through Scientific Investigation?

Introduction: The three thrusts of the Commission on Higher Education revolve around instruction, research, and extension. Performance appraisals (PA) have been utilized in various forms in different organizations, with the expected outcome of excellent employee performance. However, despite its utilization in universities, research and extension-related criteria seem to be limited in the appraisals. The study aimed to determine the following: (1) the likelihood of research and extension participation if related criteria are included in the PAs of physical therapy faculty members; (2) the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and research or extension participation; (3) factors that are implemented or not by HEIs to enhance faculty engagement. Methods: A mixed method design was utilized, with dominance of quantitative over qualitative data. Seventy-five full-time faculty members of Physical Therapy programs responded to the survey. Data were collected for six months using the Google Form online questionnaire. Spearman Rho and descriptive statistics were used to examine the results. Responses to open-ended questions were manually grouped into categories using thematic analysis. Results: The research showed that physical therapy faculty members are more likely to participate in research and extension activities if related criteria are included in the appraisals. Further, the study revealed a significant relationship between the intent to participate in research and extension-related activities and intrinsic motivation, but it did not indicate an association when correlated with extrinsic motivation. Professional development is a strong intrinsic motivator. Discussion: The inclusion of research and extension-related criteria in performance appraisals and consideration of intrinsic motivators must be considered by academic institutions to encourage faculty members to participate in research and extension activities. The author recommends maximizing the positive effects of performance appraisals by providing clear expectations to faculty members. Furthermore, intrinsic factors may serve as powerful motivators and, therefore, should be thought of to encourage participation. A strong, robust, well-supported policy centered on the organization’s vision, mission, and goals is necessary for successful implementation.

Static economic theory views the production and consumption sides of the economic environment separately as two unique activities. The distinction between the business and home aspects in the case of farming arose in economic theory and principles of analysis, especially because static theory assumes perfect knowledge, perfect foresight and the absence of change in production techniques and consumption patterns, and overlooks their interrelationships and interdependence when farmers are viewed both as producers and consumers. A great number of personal values, wants, and desires are encountered on the production side of farming and a major part of management consists of appraising the subjective costs and values of performing the various managerial functions. On the other hand, a great deal of production is recognized to be occurring on the household side of farming. Therefore, it was then realized that the distinctions maintained between the business and home sides of farming were artificial and unrealistic. As a result the distinction between the firm and household became increasingly confused and less meaningful. This basic understanding of the basic nature of operation of farm households led to the development of holistic or comprehensive farm management research and extension activities in the middle part of this century. In the subsequent period, these programs and the holistic focus on firm-household interrelationships in farming were delegated a somewhat reduced role in the research and extension activities. Recently, however, there has been a growing interest among general and development economists in this concept of firm-household behavior, and the related research and extension programs. For the most part the development has ignored past and present emphasis on firm-household interrelationships in the traditional field of farm management. It is the intention of this paper to emphasize the importance of making use of the valuable research and extension knowledge gained in the U.S. through the development of the holistic farm and home programs and the need to incorporate these concepts and the learning experiences into the newly developing methodology of Farming Systems Research.

The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) represents a concerted effort on the part of federal legislative leaders to rethink the manner in which agricultural research and extension programming are undertaken within the land-grant university system of our nation. For the first time ever, land-grant schools are being mandated to increase their energies in support of “multi” activities; namely, multiinstitutional, multidisciplinary, multifunctional, and multistate activities. The intent is to bring about greater efficiencies in carrying out the research and extension missions of our land-grant entities. In this presentation, the key provisions of AREERA are outlined. These elements include: 1) the commitment of 25% of Hatch formula funds in support of multidisciplinary research involving another agricultural experiment station, Agricultural Research Service, or college/university that collectively are seeking to solve problems that concern more than one state; 2) the expenditure of Smith-Lever formula funds for support of multistate extension activities equivalent to 25% of these formula funds, or twice the level of resources devoted to such activities using FY97 funds; and 3) a directing of 25% of Smith-Lever and Hatch funds received by an institution in FY2000 for integrated research and extension activities (or twice the level of effort committed to such efforts in FY97). It is further noted that while 1890 and 1994 institutions are required to engage in multidisciplinary, multistate, and integrated research and extension activities, they are not compelled to meet the 25% goal outlined in the AREERA legislation. Aside from the resources that must be devoted to certain activities within the Agricultural Experiment Station and the Extension Service, AREERA makes quite clear the need to actively engage stakeholders in giving shape to the priority activities of these land-grant entities. Moreover, it notes the importance of documenting the impact of the institution's research and extension investments on the priority concerns of its stakeholders. Among the key questions that will be employed to evaluate the quality of an institution's efforts are the following: Did the program address a critical issue? Did it address the needs of underserved and underrepresented populations in the state(s)? Did the investments result in improved program effectiveness and/or efficiency? Indeed, AREERA changes the landscape for many of the South's land-grant institutions. However, if efforts undertaken to date are any indication, the leadership and faculty of the region's land-grant system will successfully respond to the challenges that AREERA poses for them.