| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
119462
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Recent years have seen a considerable surge in academic work published on the Palestinian Arab minority in Israel (PAI). Strikingly, the growing interest has come from a variety of disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, including political science, security studies, sociology, and history.1 Given the vast array of pertinent questions that have arisen in relation to the Arab minority over the last decade, it is not surprising that the study of this minority has drawn interest from numerous directions. This multidisciplinarity-not to be conflated with interdisciplinarity-carries with it considerable potential for comprehensive knowledge accumulation that transcends traditional boundaries by linking diverse analytical approaches and perspectives.2 There is little doubt that political scientists and sociologists can learn from information gathered by historians, while the latter's interpretation of historical events can improve by being informed by comparative theories developed by disciplinary social scientists. Linking contributions from different disciplines can facilitate both increasing our knowledge of detail as well as improving our ability to make sense of the details and gain a better understanding of the general picture. Posed in different terms, incorporating insights from multiple disciplines increases the potential for better seeing the forest for the trees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
087330
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the previous decade, many scholars with expertise in the politics of the Middle East pointed to an intellectual gulf between Middle East studies and mainstream international and comparative political studies. Common perceptions that the Middle East experience was too exceptional to be theory-relevant and that area studies work was excessively a-theoretical were said to be responsible for the alleged chasm. If these concerns are taken at face value, a review of research published on authoritarianism and Islamic movements in the first years of the twenty-first century in top academic presses and scholarly journals indicates that a counter trend has emerged. Middle East area experts are increasingly making use of theoretical frameworks produced by non-Middle East specialists. There is, however, variation in how well disciplinary social science analytical tools are applied and in the significance of various works to theory-building. More emphasis on theory-testing and construction (rather than just theory application) as well as cross-regional and cross-cultural comparisons will increase the comparative value of works produced by Middle East area studies specialists and will add to their visibility in the discipline at large.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
084903
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article argues that the world is in the midst of a long-term transition from dominant minority to dominant majority ethnicity. Whereas minority domination was common in premodern societies, modernity (with its accent on democracy and popular sovereignty) has engendered a shift to dominant majority ethnicity. The article begins with conceptual clarifications. The second section provides a broad overview of the general patterns of ethnic dominance that derive from the logic of modern nationalism and democratisation. The third section discusses remnants of dominant minorities in the modern era and suggests that their survival hinges on peculiar historical and social circumstances coupled with resistance to democratisation. The fourth section shifts the focus to dominant majorities in the modern era and their relationship to national identities. The article ends with a discussion of the fortunes of dominant ethnicity in the West.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
058840
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
084909
|
|
|