Constructive criticism

Abstract: The author provides constructive criticism of Hunt and Morgan's (1995) promotion of the dynamic disequilibrium paradigm and explains why their comparative advantage and market orientation theory is...

Abstract: Introduction In times of hype surrounding the ‘Internet of Things’, ‘blockchain universities’, ‘learning analytics’ and the like, this special issue of the International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education starts from a simple proposition – how might we develop critical perspectives and alternative visions of technology in higher education? Our initial call resulted in the six articles that you find attached. These were written from a diversity of perspectives, and therefore address a range of concerns and approaches. We have articles that consider the implications of neuroscience for understanding educational technology, phenomenological reinterpretations of the ‘affordances’ of technology, and the politics of ‘big data’ in higher education reform. Elsewhere is a reassessment of mobile learning, a critical exploration of the ideological underpinnings of national digital strategies, and pedagogical analysis of personalized and adaptive learning. Contributions have been made by authors across Europe working in psychology and the behavioural sciences, social sciences, education research, communications and the arts. We feel confident that this collection meets our initial intention of problematizing the claims and assumptions surrounding higher education in the digital age. This is an interesting and insightful set of arguments, offering a useful counterpoint to articles featured elsewhere in the journal. While we are happy to have amassed this broad range of critical perspectives, we are not particularly surprised by the range of articles we received. The past 5 years has seen a sharp increase in scholars expressing critical views of education and technology. It is no longer an oddity to encounter challenging questions of the social, cultural, political and economic connotations of digital technology use in higher education. Nowadays, someone who problematizes the digitization of universities does not instantly draw accusations of being dystopian or simply out-of-touch. After decades of critical voices in education technology being simply ignored, or marginalized and maligned, it is now reassuring to be able to claim that there is nothing distinct about the articles that we present in this issue. However, this is not to say that these articles do not deserve our close attention. As one might hope, this is a collection of interesting contributions that raises a range of important ideas. As such, we have decided not to waste our ‘editorial’

Abstract: 629 This essay is a version of a presentation given at the Dienstagskolloquium in April 2005 at the Wissenschaftskolleg, Berlin. I am grateful to the participants for their constructive criticism, in particular Nancy Fraser, Galit Hasan Rokem, Tom Mitchell, and Shmuel Eisenstadt, whose comments and suggestions helped me clarify my argument. Special thanks go to Richard Tapper, who patiently read various drafts and helped me to improve it in many ways. The argument I develop here is part of a book project; an earlier version appears in Islamic Feminism and the Law, ed. Qudsia Mirza (London, 2006). Muslim Women’s Quest for Equality: Between Islamic Law and Feminism

Abstract: One may debate whether the tremors of a systemic crisis in investment arbitration are real, and, if so, of a great enough magnitude to shake its foundations, but it is no longer possible to deny that the current system is coming under intensive scrutiny. International lawyers, who recognize the indispensability of a well-functioning system for settling investment disputes, should be concerned about enhancing the legitimacy and functionality of investment arbitration. A well-calibrated response to the challenges facing investment arbitration is essential to ensuring its long-term future. Critics must be answered; enquiries made; reassessments undertaken. If crucial questions continue to be ignored, or simply glossed over, the strength of, and consequences flowing from, the backlash are likely to be greater in scale. This book, which grew out of a conference held at Harvard Law School in April 2008, aims to uncover the concerns driving the backlash against the present international investment regime. Thirty-one contributors - academics, practitioners, government officials and representatives of civil society - analyze both the current state and future direction of the international investment regime, and offer valuable insights into possible ways of improving the system. The concerns fuelling the backlash, and addressed in this book, include: - shrinking of domestic policy space - competitive pressures to sign investment treaties as a reason why increased investment flows may prove elusive - inflexibility of treaty obligations and lack of coordinated responses to changing circumstances, especially in financial crises - renegotiation and termination of bilateral investment treaties - lack of democratic accountability and pro-investor bias - pervasive secrecy and confidentiality of arbitral proceedings - conflicts of interest and the continuing quest for effective rules governing the conduct of arbitrator and counsel - reassessment of the traditionally perceived advantages of arbitration, such as speed, low cost, and neutrality - the extent of protection afforded to shareholders in connection with denial of benefits clauses - third parties as representatives of the public interest or advocates for organized private interests - relationship between EU law and BITs - restrictions on international arbitration in constitutional law - investment tainted by corruption; o transfer of funds clauses and exchange controls - and the practice of forum shopping Premised on the belief that an investment arbitration regime which is in listening mode and ready to adapt may draw tremendous strength from constructive criticism, the questions considered by the contributors, and relating to the sustainability and future direction of investment arbitration, demand serious attention from all stakeholders. The reforms and refinements suggested promise to bring substantial improvements to the present regime and, in so doing, could reverse the current trend towards a backlash. All stakeholders in investment arbitration will welcome and learn from this work.