The summer semester had just begun at Austrian and German universities when Covid-19 was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. Thus, in March 2020, all universities closed their campuses, switching to distance learning within the span of about a single day. How did lecturers handle the situation? Were they still able to turn the situation into a positive one? What were the main obstacles with this difficult situation, and where there conditions which helped them to overcome the (...) new challenges? These are research questions of the present survey with a sample of 1,152 lecturers at universities in Austria and Germany. The survey focuses on the lecturers’ appraisals of the novel situation as challenging or threatful. These appraisals are important for approaching a situation or shying away from it. However, how well a person adjusts to a novel situation is also influenced by personal and environmental resources which help to overcome the situation. The present survey focused on four possible sources of influence: internal assessments of the situation determining it to be threatening and/or challenging, personal resources, attitudes, and support by the organization. It was investigated to which degree these sources of influence could contribute to the lecturers’ satisfaction with their teaching processes. A multiple regression with three criterion variables describing university lecturers’ perceived satisfaction with distance teaching was carried out. Predictor variables were the lecturers’ appraisals of challenge and threat, perceived support by the university and sense of belonging to the university, temporal resources, proficiency in using digital technologies, length of teaching experience, and gender. Lecturers were mostly satisfied with their teaching activities. Together with the perception of a low threat potential, challenge appraisals contributed strongest to satisfaction. In comparison, assessments of actual personal resources, skills in the use of digital technologies, teaching experience, and temporal resources were important but contributed less to satisfaction than challenge appraisals. It seems that lecturers were only able to use these resources when the technological resources were available and when the lecturers were confident in their technical abilities. (shrink)

Editorial independence is a bedrock principle of academic publishing. The growing domination of academic publishing by large, for-profit corporations threatens this independence. There is alarming evidence that large companies too often serve their own business interests and those of powerful clients rather than serving the scientific community and the general public. This evidence includes the publication of infelicitous commercial science and concealing scientific misconduct. We present two case studies in which the UK-based publisher Taylor & Francis interfered in the editorial (...) process by blocking publication of legitimate criticism that had been reviewed and approved for publication by its specialized editors. The integrity of science depends in part on the transparency and intellectual honesty of all stakeholders. The widely acknowledged inadequacies of English libel law are reviewed as context for some of Taylor & Francis’s fearful decisions. (shrink)

As is well known, the Kāśikāvṛtti is the oldest extant rule-by-rule commentary on the Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini. Two major commentaries on it are available, the Nyāsa from the eighth century and the Padamañjarī, most likely from the eleventh century. In this article we focus on the term pradeśa, which is a familiar feature of the printed editions of the Kāśikāvṛtti on the sañjñā sūtras of the Aṣṭādhyāyī. A closer examination, however, shows that the sentence “Xpradeśāḥ — X... ity evamādayaḥ” is (...) not met with in either of the two commentaries. This has consequences for our understanding of the textual transmission of the Kāśikāvṛtti. (shrink)

In a new and accessible look at the philosophy of Sigmund Freud, learn how the great thinker's ideas are still relevant today.

Study of the philosophy of Upaniṣadbrāhmaṇa of Jaiminīyabrāhmaṇa.

يقدم المؤلف لنا قانونا اجتماعيًا لعلماء النفس والاجتماع السياسي صاغه كالآتي: (إذا زاد عدد الأفراد الذين يمارسون تصرّفًا يعدّ خزيًا، وتساهل القانون في محاسبة مرتكبيه، وعجز الناس عن إيقافه أو وجدوا له تبريرًا، تحوّل إلى ظاهرة ولم يعد خزيًا كما كان). و من هذه العبارة التقديمية يمكن أن نؤكد أن هذا الكتاب لا يمكن إيفاءه حقه بنبذة موجزة، فهو سفر فكري ممتع، حيث يتناول المؤلف فيه بشكل تحليلي وعلمي مقنع أهم الموضوعات التي تشغل العقل العربي، ما بين شخصيات سياسية كصدام (...) وسليماني، وما بين فكرة الموت والانتحار، والبغاء والجريمة، والالحاد والإيمان، واللاوعي الجمعي العربي وما يحمله من أمراض وانحرافات، والتحرش والكبت، والفساد والسلطة، واللغة العربية والحضارة. (shrink)

Critical study of various commentaries on Bādarāyaṇa's Brahmasūtra, the aphoristic work on the fundamentals of the Vedanta school in Indian philosophy.

Для юристов-практиков и разработчиков законов, студентов, аспирантов и преподавателей юридических вузов и факультетов.

Religious life in Islam and on Islamic ethics.

Shaḥrūr, Muḥammad; Islamic philosophy; Qurʼan; hermeneutics; criticism, interpretation, etc.

The article proposes a new approach to understanding gamification. Its feature lies in taking into account the criticism expressed against gamifi­cation to date. The article examines in detail the history of gamification, it is shown that at its first stage (before 2015) approaches oriented towards extrinsic motivation prevailed, while at the second stage (after 2015) ap­proaches oriented towards intrinsic motivation began to prevail. Ignoring this point just leads to the fact that the criticism expressed in the early 2010s (its main (...) idea was that gamification is a new form of exploitation and manipulation) seems relevant today, although in fact it is no longer so. But it’s not just about rethinking criticism, it’s also about taking a fresh look at gamification itself, which has continued (since 2011) to be defined as «the use of game design elements in non-game contexts”. And this is even despite the fact that such a definition no longer corresponds to the current situation. First, it is confusing by mixing gamification with seri­ous games. Second, it is confusing by limiting gamification to non-game contexts. Third, it is silent about why gamification is used. Fourth, it does not explain exactly which elements are being implemented. Alternatively, we propose our own definition: gamification is a methodology for using metagame elements and mechanics to correct human behavior by creating a favorable emotional background. (shrink)