1. UNIDADE CURRICULAR (COM ECTS) CURRICULAR UNIT (WITH ECTS)
SEMINÁRIO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO II
5 ECTS
R
ESEARCHC
OLLOQUIUMII
2. DESIGNAÇÃO DO CICLO DE ESTUDOS EM QUE SE INSERE A UNIDADE CURRICULAR (COM SEMESTRE E ANO LETIVO) Doutoramento, 1º semestre, 2019-2020
STUDY CYCLE TO WHICH THE CURRICULAR UNIT BELONGS (PLUS SEMESTER AND ACADEMIC YEAR) PhD., first semester, 2019-2020
Doutoramento em Estudos de Cultura/ 2.º Semestre / 2020-2021
PhD in Culture Studies /1st Semester/ 2020-2021
3. DOCENTE(S) DA UNIDADE CURRICULAR ACADEMIC STAFF
Maria Luisa Homem Leal de Faria Geraldes Barba 4. CARGA LECTIVA NA UNIDADE CURRICULAR WEEKLY TEACHING HOURS
24 horas
24 hours
5. OBJETIVOS DE APRENDIZAGEM (CONHECIMENTOS, APTIDÕES E COMPETÊNCIAS A DESENVOLVER PELOS ESTUDANTES)
LEARNING OUTCOMES (KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND COMPETENCIES TO BE DEVELOPED BY STUDENTS)
O Seminário de Investigação proporciona um espaço para reflexão e debate sobre a investigação em curso dos estudantes, enquadrando-a nos requisitos de análise e crítica prosseguidos a alto nível no âmbito dos estudos de cultura. A primeira parte do programa revê as linhas gerais da constituição de campos epistemológicos no quadro das Humanidades, dentro dos quais a investigação se desenvolve, assim como os requisitos interpretativos necessários para a análise crítica. A segunda parte proporciona uma abordagem aplicada que visa avaliar, através de apresentações e debates, a natureza do contributo de linhas de investigação específicas para o campo dos estudos de cultura, bem como a capacidade de escrita e comunicação académicas dos estudantes. A natureza interdisciplinar dos Estudos de Cultura recomenda a adopção de um programa flexível, adaptável às linhas de investigação específicas de cada doutorando. Os objectivos de aprendizagem são conformes aos descritores de Dublin para o 3º Ciclo.
Research Colloquium provides a space for reflection and debate on the students’ individual research, framing it within the broad requirements of analysis and criticism studied at a high level within culture studies. The first part of the programme provides the canvas within which research must be pursued by examining the epistemological constitution of the fields of research in the Humanities and the interpretive skills required for critical analysis. The second part provides an applied approach designed to evaluate, through presentation and debate, the nature of the contribution of specific lines of research to the field of culture studies, as well as the quality of writing and communication skills of the students. The interdisciplinary nature of culture studies recommends a flexible syllabus, adaptable to the specific lines of research pursued by the individual students. The learning outcomes conform to the Dublin descriptors for the 3rd cycle of studies.
6. CONTEÚDOS PROGRAMÁTICOS SYLLABUS
I – Preparar o terreno
1. As Humanidades: epistemologia e hermenêutica 2. Conceitos
3. Crítica
4. Comunidades interpretativas
II – Escrever uma tese
1. A ansiedade da influência 2. A escrita académica 3. Abordagens
4. Métodos I LAYING THE GROUND
1. The Humanities: Epistemology and Hermeneutics 2. Concepts
3. Criticism
4. Interpretive Communities
II ON WRITING A THESIS
1. The Anxiety of Influence 2. Academic Writing 3. Approaches 4. Methods
7. METODOLOGIA DE ENSINO (AVALIAÇÃO INCLUÍDA) TEACHING METHODOLOGY (INCLUDING ASSESSMENT)
Metodologias de ensino: As sessões de seminário serão dedicadas ao debate conjunto
sobre trabalhos individuais, previamente definidos. Através de troca de perspectivas e de posições informadas, de métodos de investigação e de contributos para o campo de conhecimento, comparar-se-ão e discutir-se-ão abordagens críticas e a sua formulação em textos académicos. A auto-avaliação terá papel importante na apresentação e debate sobre a investigação em curso. As melhores práticas de integridade na investigação constituirão o terreno comum para a apreciação dos projectos individuais.
Avaliação: A produção de textos escritos e orais e a participação em debates constituem a
base da avaliação. Os estudantes deverão apresentar pelo menos um paper no decurso do seminário, enquadrado pelas perguntas de investigação relevantes, apresentação de linhas metodológicas e bibliografia relevante, bem como apresentarem também uma reflexão sobre as dificuldades ou problemas que porventura tenham enfrentado no processo de investigação e redacção. Espera-se que todos os estudantes contribuam para os debates. No final do semestre cada estudante apresentará um trabalho individual escrito, que poderá ter a forma de um projecto de tese pormenorizado, de um capítulo de tese, ou de um ensaio ou artigo para presumível apresentação e publicação. A natureza específica deste paper será uma consequência do trabalho desenvolvido ao longo do semestre.
Avaliação contínua: 30% Apresentação: 30% Trabalho final: 40%
Qualquer evidência de plágio será punida com a atribuição de zero ao elemento de avaliação que tenha utilizado indevidamente textos de terceiros.
Teaching methodologies: The seminar sessions will be dedicated to collective debate on
individual work previously assigned. Through the exchange of informed positions and perspectives, methods of research, contributions to the field of knowledge, critical approaches and their provisional or final presentation in scholarly texts will be compared, weighted and considered. Self-criticism will play a major role in the presentation and debate on ongoing research. Best practices of research integrity will constitute the common ground for the assessment of individual projects.
Evaluation: Production of oral and written texts and participation in debates form the basis of
evaluation. Students will be expected to present at least one paper during the course of the seminar, framed with the relevant research questions, clear methodological grounds and relevant bibliography, and to produce a reflection on the difficulties, or otherwise, they faced while researching and writing the paper. All students are expected to contribute to the debate. At the end of the semester each student will present a final paper which may take the shape of a detailed thesis project, a chapter of a thesis, or a complete essay for presumed public
presentation and publication. The specific nature of the final paper will be a consequence of the ongoing work throughout the seminar.
Continuous assessment: 30%
Presentation: 30%
Final paper: 40%
Any evidence of plagiarism shall be penalized with a mark of zero (0). Plagiarism is the improper use of a text and/or ideas that are not one’s own.
8. BIBLIOGRAFIA PRINCIPAL MAIN BIBLIOGRAPHY
I LAYING THE GROUND
1. The Humanities: Epistemology and Hermeneutics
William Franke (2015), “Involved Knowing: On the Poetic Epistemology of the Humanities”, Humanities 2015, 4 (4), 600-622.
Paul Ricoeur (1991) “What is a Text? Explanation and Understanding”, in From
Text to Action, Northwestern University Press.
Martha Nussbaum (2010), “Cultivating Imagination: Literature and the Arts”, Chapter VI of Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities
Thomas Kuhn (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
2. Concepts
Mieke Bal (2002) Travelling Concepts in the Humanities: A Rough Guide. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
James Elkins, “Art Criticism” in the Grove (Oxford) Dictionary of Art.
3. Criticism
T. S. Eliot (1956) “The Frontiers of Criticism”. The Sewanee Review, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1956), pp. 525-543.
Michel Foucault (2007) “What is Critique?”, in The Politics of Truth, edited by Sylvère Lotringer; Introduction by John Rajchman. Translated by Lysa Hochtoth & Catherine Porter, Los Angeles, Semiotext(e).
Jonathan Culler (1976) “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism”, Comparative Literature, Vol. 28, Nº 3, Contemporary Criticism: Theory and
Practice (Summer, 1976), pp. 244-256
Bruno Latour (2004), “Has critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern”, Critical Inquiry 30 (Winter).
Rita Felski, (2012) “Critique and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion”, M/C Journal, Vol. 15, Nº1.
Ernest Ruckle (1978), “A New Criticism for the Visual Arts: The application of poetry’s “New Critical” techniques may provide an answer to today’s crisis in art criticism”, [sl]
Deniz Tekiner, (2006) “Formalist Art Criticism and the Politics of Meaning”, Social
Justice, Vol. 33, No. 2 (104), Art, Power, and Social Change, pp. 31-44.
Edward T. Cone (1981) “The Authority of Music Criticism”, Journal of the American
Musicological Society, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Spring, 1981), pp. 1-18
4. Interpretive communities
Stanley Fish (1980), “What Makes Interpretation Acceptable?” in Is There a Text in
This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard
University Press.
Rita Felski,(2011) “Suspicious Minds”,Poetics Today 32:2 (Summer)
II ON WRITING A THESIS
5. The Anxiety of Influence:
Harold Bloom (1997) “Clinamen, Tessera, Kenosis, Daemonization, Askesis. Apophrades” in The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Wayne C, Booth et al, (2003) The Craft of Research, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2nd edition.
Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein (2014), They Say, I say: The Moves that Matter
in Academic Writing. New York, W. W. Norton & Company, 3rd. Edition.
6. Academic writing
Jonathan Culler and Kevin Lamb (2003) “Introduction: Dressing Up, Dressing Down” in Just Being Difficult? Academic Writing and the Public Arena, Stanford, Stanford University Press.
Amanda Anderson (2006) The Way We Argue Now: A Study in the Cultures of Theory, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
7. Approaches
Amanda Anderson (1988), “Debatable Performances: Restaging Contentious Feminisms”, Social Text, No. 54 (Spring), pp. 1-24
Eve Sedgwick (2002), Touching, Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity. Chapter 4: “Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading, or, you’re so paranoid you probably think this essay is about you”. Durham, Duke University Press.
Michael Pickering, ed. (2008) Research Methods for Cultural Studies, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.
Ethnography: Johannes Fabian and Vincent de Rooij (2008), “Ethnography”, in
Tony Bennett and John Frow, eds, The Sage Handbook of Cultural Analysis, London, UK, Sage Publications, pp. 609-631.
Discourse analysis: Lilie Chouliaraki (2008) “Discourse Analysis”, in Bennett, T;
Frow, J. (eds.), The SAGE handbook of cultural analysis. London, UK, Sage Publications, pp. 674-698.
The Visual Arts: “The Visual Art Critic: A Survey of Art Critics at General-Interest Publications in America” (2002) Author/Ptoject Director: András Szántó. National Arts Journalism Program, Columbia University.
Music: Tia de Nora,(1999) “Music as a Technology of the Self”, Poetics 27, 31-56
Tia DeNora and Gary Ansdell (2017) “Music in Action: tinkering, testing and tracing over time”, Qualitative Research, Volume: 17 issue: 2, page(s): 231-245
