| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
103956
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This introduction to an Asia Pacific Viewpoint special section on militarism and gender in the Pacific argues that gendered analyses are crucial to understanding processes of militarization, and that multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches are integral in that effort. The introduction also provides background to the articles, outlining their origin in a workshop on militarism and gender in the Pacific held in Wellington, New Zealand in 2009, and its subsequent iteration in sessions at the Oceanic Conference of International Studies in 2010. The special section constitutes the first publication of a permanent working group on militarism and gender in the Pacific with an international, multidisciplinary membership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
151427
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article explores the evolution of the field of military innovation studies, critiquing its theoretical foundations and setting out a number of challenges that must be overcome if the field is to fulfil its potential and enhance its contribution to wider disciplinary debates as well as to the practitioner community. Tensions between the main theoretical approaches to military innovation are examined as are the challenges inherent in its increasingly multidisciplinary character. The issue of whether military innovation studies constitutes a field in its own right is addressed before recommendations are made to expand the field’s research agenda, broaden its theoretical base and strengthen its multidisciplinary credibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
083735
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Despite its content being perceived as highly relevant to Canadian Forces (CF) leader development and current and future role demands, sociology has not become permanently embedded in the Canadian military college (milcol) curriculum. We argue that among other factors, this has been the result of such influences as lack of interest and/or support from academic sociologists outside the military; hegemony of other disciplines within the military; reaction of the military system to sociological topics and results; the number and organization of uniformed and civilian sociologists internally; and the failure of military sociologists to adequately market themselves or to follow up on the gains they have made. Notwithstanding, the authors note that recent developments both outside and inside the military college environment offer some promise of improved prospects for sociology (and anthropology): preferably, within a more multidisciplinary instructional context
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|