We may not be able to make you love reading, but archaeology of knowledge will lead you to love reading starting from now. Book is the window to open the new world. The world that you want is in the better stage and level. World will always guide you to even the prestige stage of the life. You know, this is some of how reading will give you the kindness. In this case, more books you read more knowledge you know, but it can mean also the bore is full.

The archaeology of knowledge

Note on Translation Introduction by Michael Holquist Response to a Question from the Novy Mir Editorial Staff The Bildungsroman and Its Significance in the History of Realism (Toward a Historical Typology of the Novel) The Problem of Speech Genres The Problem of the Text in Linguistics, Philology, and the Human Sciences: An Experiment in Philosophical Analysis From Notes Made in 1970-71 Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences Index

Speech Genres and Other Late Essays

Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy

Ethical tensions are part of the everyday practice of doing research—all kinds of research. How do researchers deal with ethical problems that arise in the practice of their research, and are there conceptual frameworks that they can draw on to assist them? This article examines the relationship between reflexivity and research ethics. It focuses on what constitutes ethical research practice in qualitative research and how researchers achieve ethical research practice. As a framework for thinking through these issues, the authors distinguish two different dimensions of ethics in research, which they term procedural ethics and “ethics in practice.” The relationship between them and the impact that each has on the actual doing of research are examined. The article then draws on the notion of reflexivity as a helpful way of understanding both the nature of ethics in qualitative research and how ethical practice in research can be achieved.

Ethics, Reflexivity, and “Ethically Important Moments” in Research

What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

Liberal government and techniques of the self, Graham Burchell governing "advanced" liberal democracies, Nikolas Rose liberalism, socialism and democracy - variations on a governmental theme, Barry Hindess the promise of liberalism and the performance of freedom, Vikki Bell security and vitality - drains, liberalism and power in the 19th century, Thomas Osborne lines of communication and spaces of rule, Andrew Barry assembling the school, Ian Hunter governing the city - liberalism and early modern governance, Alan Hunt risk and responsibility, Pat O'Malley Foucault, government and the enfolding of authority, Mitchell Dean revolutions within - self-government and self-esteem, Barbara Cruikshank Foucault in Britain, Colin Gordon.

Foucault and political reason : liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government

Governing "advanced" liberal democracies

'Pierre Bourdieu: Celui qui disait non.'

Foucault and Political Reason

This paper is an investigation into the philosophy and the history of the social sciences. Some philosophers of the social sciences have suggested that a key feature of the natural sciences is their capacity to create phenomena, and that the social sciences do not meet this criterion. We suggest, to the contrary, that the social sciences can and do create phenomena, in the sense of new ways of describing and acting that have been used to produce all sorts of effects. Like the natural sciences, the social sciences create their phenomena through the procedures that are established to discover them. But the creation of phenomena is a complex, technically difficult and contested process and its success rare. Historically, this argument is developed through a case-study of the development and evolution of public opinion research in the USA and Britain. We argue that by the 1950s public opinion produced a version of the world that had entered ‘into the true’. Special attention is given to technical considerations in the development of public opinion research, especially the genealogy of a particular research technology, that of the representative sample. Whilst we are not concerned with demarcation criteria, we argue that there are some important differences between the social and the natural sciences; that the former have a less concentrated ‘spatial mix’ and a slower ‘tempo of creativity’. None the less, in this particular case, the social sciences have played a key role in the creation of opinioned persons and an opinionated society.

Thomas Osborne

Papers

Foucault and political reason : liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government

Governing "advanced" liberal democracies

'Pierre Bourdieu: Celui qui disait non.'

Foucault and Political Reason

Do the social sciences create phenomena?: the example of public opinion research.