Google
 

Monday, December 01, 2014

Call for Applications: The 2015 TWSC Writeshop



CALL FOR APPLICATIONS

The 2015 TWSC Writeshop
Third World Studies Center, Lower Ground Floor,
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy,
Palma Hall, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City
8-10 June 2015


About the writeshop

The Third World Studies Center (TWSC) launches the 2015 TWSC Writeshop in continuing its commitment to build the capacity of early career researchers, junior faculty members, and graduate students in the social sciences. Envisioning itself as a premiere social science research center in the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines-Diliman, the TWSC continues to develop critical, alternative paradigms to promote progressive scholarship by undertaking pioneering research and publishing original, empirically-grounded, and innovative studies. The 2015 TWSC Writeshop serves as a dais linking academic research and publication, where select participants are not only given the opportunity to interact with experts from the academe and the publishing industry, but also to produce a publishable manuscript for the TWSC’s internationally refereed and CHED-accredited (A-2, Very Good - Excellent)  journal Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies.

In 2010, the TWSC conducted its pilot research workshop entitled “Writing for Social Sciences Research” that presented the rudimentary process of academic research and writing in the social sciences for UP Diliman social science students. In 2012, it held its second research workshop, “Multidisciplinary Perspectives and Methodologies in the Social Sciences” that centered on multidisciplinarity and theoretical and methodological training within and outside the social sciences. In 2014, the TWSC launched “The 2014 UP TWSC Writeshop” with the belief that if one is to commit to the changing zeitgeist/sociocultural agenda of research, s/he has to effectively contribute to the body of knowledge in her/his interest, to establish networks with scholars with similar research interests, and to obtain critique for the continuous improvement of one’s research output. The 2015 TWSC Writeshop sustains this academic tradition.

The 2015 TWSC Writeshop will feature academic lectures; small group discussions with journal editors; and a plenary presentation as culminating activity. The lectures encompass: 1) problematizing theory in the social sciences; 2) the contribution of quantitative research to knowledge production in the social sciences; 3) the contribution of qualitative research to knowledge production in the social sciences; 4) research and publication ethics in the social sciences; and 5) the academic publication process. In seeing through the TWSC Writeshop’s goal in equipping successful applicants, who would then be called Writeshop Fellows, the Writeshop extends to the publication process and concludes with the publication of the finished manuscripts in a special issue in Kasarinlan.

Who may apply

There will only be ten (10) successful applicants who will be called Writeshop Fellows. Applicants can be social science graduate students, early career researchers, and junior faculty members from any Philippine higher education institution. Applicants who have not yet participated in previous TWSC writeshops will be prioritized.

What to submit

Applicants must be able to submit the following to uptwsc@gmail.com on or before 20 March 2015:

1.    An unpublished article, authored solely by the applicant, with a minimum of 4,000 words, an abstract and a list of references, that can be developed into a full-length article for publication in the Center’s internationally refereed and CHED-accredited (A-2, Very Good - Excellent) journal Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies. Submission must conform to the publication format of the journal (http://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/kasarinlan/information/authors). The draft article must demonstrate theoretical rigor and be empirically sound or based on actual research. Submissions will be plagiarism-checked. The submission must conform to the template downloadable here:  http://goo.gl/F7GgY7.
2.    Soft copy of latest curriculum vitae with references.

What to expect after submission of requirements

1.    All submissions will undergo plagiarism check by the Kasarinlan editorial staff. Submissions without plagiarized contents will undergo preliminary editorial evaluation by the Kasarinlan editorial staff. Ten submissions will be selected, with graduate students, early career researchers, and junior faculty members to be given priority.
2.    The ten applicants whose submissions were selected will be notified by email, including  the terms of reference (TOR) for the Writeshop. They must convey their full understanding, agreement, and acceptance of the TOR by sending the signed TOR to uptwsc@gmail.com.
3.    There is no registration fee. Successful applicants based outside of Metro Manila may apply for subsidies, in the forms of per diem and reimbursed travel expenses subject to government accounting rules. Those who would like to avail of the above subsidies must send a signed letter addressed to the Director, Dr. Ricardo T.  Jose to uptwsc@gmail.com, with clear justification on why they are requesting for such.


What to expect during the writeshop

Day 1    
  • Keynote speech
  • Introduction of Writeshop Fellows
  • Module 1 Ano’ng problema mo?: Problematizing theory in the social sciences
  • Module 2 Ano’ng kuwento ng kuwenta mo?: Quantitative research and knowledge production in the social sciences
  • Module 3 Ano’ng kuwenta ng kuwento mo?: Qualitative research and knowledge production in the social sciences
Day 2    
  • Module 4 Ano’ng paki mo?: Research and publication ethics in the social sciences
  • Module 5 So, ano na?: The academic publication process
Day 3    
  • Non-blind peer review in the form of small-group discussions with assigned journal editors
  • Culminating activity: Plenary presentation of participants
  • Awarding of certificates

About the lectures

1.    Ano’ng problema mo?: Problematizing theory in the social sciences
The lecture broadly seeks to rethink the problematization process in social science research by renewing appreciation for and rethinking the import of theorizing in the social sciences. Zooming in on producing a publishable output with rigor in theory use, the lecture is deliberate in also giving critical and constructive inputs on the Writeshop Fellows’ theoretical and analytical concepts, in the form of a collegial academic exercise.

2.    Ano’ng kuwento ng kuwenta mo?: Quantitative research and knowledge production in the social sciences
The lecture broadly seeks to give fresh perspectives on quantitative studies and how they expand—as opposed to limit to numbers and figures—social science analysis. It also seeks to give a balanced perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative approaches to inculcate meaningful appreciation and applied knowledge in producing a quantitative research publication.  The lecture also entails giving critical and constructive inputs on the Writeshop Fellows’ methodological concepts, procedures, and analyses in the form of a collegial academic exercise.

3.    Ano’ng kuwenta ng kuwento mo?: Qualitative research and knowledge production in the social sciences
The lecture broadly seeks to give fresh perspectives on qualitative studies and how they meld subjectivities with rigor in social science analysis. It also seeks to give a balanced perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of qualitative approaches to inculcate meaningful appreciation and applied knowledge in producing a qualitative research publication. The lecture also entails giving critical and constructive inputs on the Writeshop Fellows’ methodological concepts, procedures, and analyses in the form of a collegial academic exercise.

4.    Ano’ng paki mo?: Research and publication ethics in the social sciences
The lecture seeks to question “ethics as a given” in social science research and probe established and contemporary ethical practices on conceptualizing, carrying out, and disseminating research in the social sciences. It also seeks to orient the participants to the publication process and its imperative ethical practice. The lecture also entails giving critical and constructive inputs on the Writeshop Fellows’ ethical research conduct and writing practice in the form of a collegial academic exercise.

5.    So, ano na?: The academic publication process
The lecture seeks to give participants a grounded appreciation for academic publishing in the social sciences. It seeks to serve as guide on what they can expect in the publication process. The lecture will be followed by an open forum where the Writeshop Fellows can further engage the speaker on a discussion about academic publication.

Upon completion of the Writeshop, the Fellows are expected to: 1) have an increased awareness of academic publishing; 2) have an increased awareness of the publication process; and 3) continue their engagement with the TWSC for possible publication of their manuscript in Kasarinlan.

What to expect after the writeshop

June 24, 2015
Deadline of first revision (two-week timeframe)

July 8, 2015
Notify authors of editorial evaluation of revisions: Further revisions or copyediting

July 22, 2015
Deadline of final revision (two-week timeframe)

August 5, 2015
Notify authors whose articles will be published in Kasarinlan

For inquiries:

Elinor May K. Cruz
University Research Associate
Third World Studies Center
University of the Philippines-Diliman
Lower Ground Floor, Palma Hall
University of the Philippines
1101 Diliman, Quezon City

E-mail: uptwsc@gmail.com
Telephone: +63 2 981 8500 ext. 2488
Telefax: +63 2 920 5428
Mobile: +63926 710 2926

Please click here for CHED endorsement.


Tuesday, November 25, 2014

TWSC Researchers Miguel Paolo P. Reyes and Joel F. Ariate Jr. Present their Research on Academic and Authorial Integrity in the University of the Philippines Diliman

The Research Presentation
L-R, facing the camera: Joel F. Ariate Jr., Third World Studies Center (TWSC) university researcher, Dr. Ricardo Jose, TWSC director and professor of history, and Miguel Paolo P. Reyes, TWSC university research associate. L-R, with their back turned to the camera: Dr. Maria Ela L. Atienza, associate professor of political science and Dr. Elizabeth L. Enriquez, professor of broadcast communication.


L-R: Dr. Benito M. Pacheco, UP Diliman vice chancellor for academic affairs and professor of engineering; Dr. Zosimo E. Lee, professor of philosophy and former dean of the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy; Prof. Josephine C. Dionisio, chair of the Student Disciplinary Council and assistant professor of sociology; Atty. Vyva Victoria M. Aguirre, former dean, School of Library and Information Studies, and Prof. Jely A. Galang, TWSC deputy director and assistant professor of history. 

L-R: Atty. Vyva Victoria M. Aguirre, Prof. Jely A. Galang, Dr. Elizabeth L. Enriquez, Dr. Cecilia A. Florencio, university professor emeritus of nutrition; Dr. Maria Ela L. Atienza, and Dr. Milagros P. Querubin, associate professor of nutrition.

L-R: Dr. Cecilia A. Florencio, Dr. Henry J. Ramos (partly hidden), Ma. Cecilia B. Olivar, cleck of the now defunct Student Disciplinary Tribunal; and Dr. Maria Ela L. Atienza.

Reactions from the Research Participants

Dr. Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem, professor of political science.

Dr. Elizabeth L. Enriquez, professor of broadcast communication.

Prof. Josephine C. Dionisio, chair of the Student Disciplinary Council and assistant professor of sociology.

Dr. Elizabeth L. Enriquez, Dr. Cecilia A. Florecncio, Dr. Maria Ela L. Atienza, Dr. Henry J. Ramos, director of the Diliman Project Management and Resource Generation Office, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Development and professor of physics; and Dr. Milagros P. Querubin.

The Researchers Respond



Summary of the Draft Research Report Presented to the Research Participants on 24 November 2014, 2:00-5:00 p.m., Conference Room, Third World Studies Center, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, UP Diliman

This research is an attempt to understand, and in turn demonstrate this understanding to the public and the academic community, how plagiarism and similar forms of fraud, has coursed through the veins of academic life in University of the Philippines-Diliman (UP Diliman). By plagiarism we mean the transgression of perceived standards and commonly understood values for the proper attribution of ideas. Our definition, informed by our understanding that standards are historically contingent and values breed its own unbelievers, may seem to run counter to the image of unbending, unchanging rules that the phrase “academic and authorial integrity” connotes. But then there is the truism that even integrity is also a matter of perception. That UP Diliman upholds academic and authorial integrity seem to be a statement that needs no further proof. Until one looks into the specific instances on how UP Diliman has dealt with those who were accused of violating this central academic and ethical tenet. When a student or a member of the faculty is accused of plagiarism, fabrication or theft of research data, or has misrepresented the extent of his or her authorship in an academic work, certain investigative and disciplinary procedures are at hand to address the issue. The usual point of reference are the “Rules and Regulations on the Discipline of Faculty Members and Employees (RRDFME),” approved by the UP Board of Regents (BOR) in 1963 and the “Rules and Regulations in Student Conduct and Discipline (RRSCD),” approved by the UP BOR in 1976. Both have been amended and modified. On 07 August 2014, the RRSCD was superseded by the 2012 Code of Student Conduct (Student Code). The changes to these sets of rules indicate a degree of responsiveness and flexibility on the part of the University. Though these changes for the most part were attempts to make the application of disciplinary processes more transparent, accessible, and rational, the changes have also led to unresolved questions, in particular on provisions on intellectual dishonesty and academic fraud and its corresponding penalties. The established approach is to determine if the act under consideration rises to the level of a misconduct that violates the university’s legal and administrative codes. This process has been saddled both by the refusal of some academics to pass judgment on their colleague and the inherent legalism and tedious legalistic proceedings that it entails. There are also procedural interstices that allow for arbitrary and improvised processes. Gaps that allow a professor to punish a student plagiarist with a failing grade and for administration officials to so expedite a process for a faculty member to be cleared by the BOR of any ethical wrongdoing in a matter of months—in stark contrast to those who have to wait for years to receive a ruling. Then there are also those who were accused of intellectual dishonesty in the course of their work as UP Diliman academics who have decided to seek redress in trial courts outside of the University. Based also on the cases and instances reviewed, UP Diliman seem to be able to deal with intellectually dishonest students in a more straightforward manner and punish some of them with greater severity than the ethically errant members of the faculty. An expulsion or a two-year suspension from the university hardly equals the surreptitious resignation of some faculty members who were caught red-handed in plagiarism cases. These quick-fix maneuvers do not contribute to the formation and sustenance of a more robust, fair, and transparent institutional mechanism that can pass timely and commensurate judgment on ethically compromised members of the academe.

The presentation is part of the research activities of  “The UP Diliman Handbook on Academic and Authorial Integrity” funded through the Source of Solution Grant under the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Development (Project No. 111108 SOS.

Friday, November 07, 2014

The 2014 UP TWSC Public Lecture Series on Natural Disasters Lecture 4-- Chaotic Networks, Networked Chaos: Crowdsourcing in the New Media on Natural Disasters




The 2014 UP TWSC Public Lecture Series on Natural Disasters

LECTURE 4

Chaotic Networks, Networked Chaos:  
Crowdsourcing in the New Media on Natural Disasters
25 November 2014 (Tuesday), 2:00 4:00 p.m.
College of Mass Communication Auditorium, University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City


PROGRAM
2:00 – 2:05 
Opening Remarks

2:05 – 2:10 
Introduction of the Lecturer and Reactors

2:10 – 2:50 
Lecturer
Maria Ressa
Chief Executive Officer
Rappler

2:50 – 3:20 
Reactors
Susan Pancho-Festin
Associate Professor
Department of Computer Science
College of Science
University of the Philippines Diliman

Danilo Arao
Assistant Professor
Department of Journalism
College of Mass Communication
University of the Philippines Diliman

3:20 – 3:55 
Open Forum

3:55 – 4:00 
Closing Remarks

Moderator
Jely Galang
Deputy Director, Third World Studies Center and
Assistant Professor, Department of History
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
University of the Philippines Diliman



ABOUT THE LECTURE
New media has been hailed as the “ultimate game changer” for natural disasters. Declared as having made possible “a real first for humanitarian response in the 21st century,” the new media, spanning social networking sites, Web 2.0 platforms, and mobile applications, have been the “go-to tools” in mapping out real-time information during natural disasters. They provide a bird’s eye view on the unravelling of the disaster, directing help to where it is needed in unprecedented fashion. The new media owes its success to a time when “access to information is as important as access to food and shelter,” as once argued by National Geographic Explorer Patrick Meier. In the Philippines, Typhoon Pablo witnessed new media’s crisis mapping capabilities, when the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) activated the Digital Humanitarian Network, a network of solutions teams that monitored over tens of thousands of tweets in a span of ten hours during the typhoon. From the “curated tweets,” the team produced a metadata containing information on media type (photo or video), the type of damage, analysis of the damage, GPS coordinates, date, as well as links to other media types. The database was created and shared with OCHA Philippines in less than 24 hours. The solutions teams attributed this to the rich “social media footprint” of Filipinos and a similar grassroots “information-sharing” dynamics was seen more recently during Typhoon Yolanda. While Facebook made possible a “donate button” in its newsfeeds and Google launched “Person Finder,” netizens streamlined the use of hashtags in Twitter for efficient online coordination of relief efforts offline—and success stories have been remarkable. A Filipina doctor, who posted a call for help during Typhoon Yolanda in a social networking website, received donations amounting to £30,000 in less than 24 hours. There seems to be no dispute to what the country can gain from what the new media makes possible in terms of disaster prevention and relief. Yet the new media also has its share of flak—”slacktivism,” where political engagement has been limited to a click of a button arguably reducing its merit; “trolling,” where racist comments have proliferated in the wake of natural disasters in an attempt to pull down efforts to rise above the disaster; as well as “information overload,” where netizens become saturated and rewired only to absorb not more than 140 characters of information. The backlash is they end up relying on other people to act and leave it at that. The end result is a virtual community where netizens find themselves “alone, together” in its “collective action and shared responsibility.” With the Philippines tagged as “the world’s most disaster-hit country,” and recently “the world’s most sociable online race,” how does this impact on the country’s present precarity? Who are the amorphous mass of Filipino netizens and how much of their real-time actions wield power, if at all, before, during, and after natural disasters? How can we re-imagine Philippine encounters of natural disasters with the future of new media?


KEY QUESTIONS 
1. What has been the role of new media on disaster prevention and relief in the Philippines? Some have characterized the new media as having revolutionized disaster response all over the world, but to what extent is it the ultimate game changer in disaster prevention and relief in a country with low internet penetration (35 percent of the total population)?

2. With the Philippines recently tagged as “the world’s most sociable online race,” how does this impact on the country’s precarious status as “the world’s most disaster-hit country”?

3. Who are the amorphous mass of Filipino netizens and how much of their real-time actions wield power, if at all, before, during, and after natural disasters?


4. While the new media has been a leverage with which netizens have demonstrated responsibility as a call for accountability, how sustainable are these collective actions in the transitory cycle of news feeds?

5. How can we re-imagine Philippines encounters of natural disasters with the future of new media?

See link for the concept paper of the public lecture series.


A Discussion with Dr. Frank Dhont: Brunei in World War II: The Japanese Occupation Remembered

Brunei in World War II: the Japanese Occupation Remembered
A Discussion with Frank Dhont (PhD, Yale)
University of Brunei Darussalam
Institute of Asian Studies

11 November 2014 (Tuesday), 1:00 – 3:00PM
Conference Room, Third World Studies Center
Lower Ground Floor, Palma Hall,
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
University of the Philippines-Diliman

In World War II Brunei was occupied by the Japanese. Brunei was included in the Japanese Army administration that governed the whole of the northern part of Borneo. The southern part of Borneo was controlled by the Japanese Navy. The paper investigates the impact the Japanese occupation had on Brunei and how this Japanese occupation is currently depicted and remembered from a personal perspective and collective experience in Brunei.


ABOUT THE LECTURER


Dr. Frank Dhont is Senior Lecturer in the Institute of Asian Studies (IAS), University Brunei Darussalam (UBD). He obtained a PhD in History from Yale University specializing in history of Indonesia and Southeast Asia. He also holds an MHum in history from Gadjah Mada University (Indonesia) as well as an MA in Indonesian from Lund University (Sweden). As Indonesianist, he is regularly involved in multidisciplinary initiatives and is founder and chair of the International Indonesia Forum. His major research interests include the reactions of both indigenous rulers and ordinary people to Japanese colonialism in the Netherlands Indies during World War II. He is also interested in the history of both World Wars in Asia and the spread of nationalism, especially in the context of colonial empires in Asia. He is currently working on the manuscript of Outlasting Colonialism: Socio-political Change in the Javanese Principalities under the Japanese Occupation of Indonesia during World War II.

Monday, October 27, 2014

The 2014 UP TWSC Public Lecture Series on Natural Disasters Lecture 3-- Improvising Normalcy, The Normalcy of Improvisations: Policy and Practice in Post-Disaster Governance


The 2014 UP TWSC Public Lecture Series on Natural Disasters
LECTURE 3
Improvising Normalcy, The Normalcy of Improvisations:
Policy and Practice in Post-Disaster Governance
7 November 2014 (Friday), 2:00 – 4:00 p.m.
National College of Public Administration and Governance
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City


PROGRAM
2:00 – 2:10  
Opening Remarks
Maria Fe Mendoza, DPA
Dean
National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG)
University of the Philippines Diliman

2:10 – 2:20  
Introduction of the Lecturer and Reactors

2:20 – 3:00  
Lecturer
Perlita Frago-Marasigan, PhD
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy (CSSP)
University of the Philippines Diliman

3:00 – 3:30  
Reactors
Kristoffer Berse, PhD
Assistant Professor, NCPAG
University of the Philippines Diliman

Fouad Bendimerad, PhD, PE
Chairman and Executive Director 
Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative 

Val Barcinal, MD
Department Head
Marikina City Disaster Risk Reduction and  Management Office
Marikina City

3:30 – 4:00  
Open Forum

Moderators   
Maria Faina Diola, DPA
Assistant Professor and 
Director, Publications Office 
NCPAG
University of the Philippines Diliman

Jely Galang
Deputy Director, Third World Studies Center and
Assistant Professor, Department of History
CSSP
University of the Philippines Diliman


ABOUT THE LECTURE

If Republic Act No. 10121, the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, is indicative of the role of the pure and applied sciences in Philippine legislation, then the intersection of the scientific and legal domains in the Philippines can best be described as tangential. In 2010, RA 10121 superseded Presidential Decree No. 1566 as the controlling law on disaster preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery in the Philippines. Among the new law's provisions are definitions of disaster, risk, and related terms, which had no antecedents in the previous law. Notably, most of these definitions are taken virtually wholesale from the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), which is hinted at—as the said source is not explicitly acknowledged—by section 2c of RA 10121: “[It shall be the policy of the state to Incorporate] internationally accepted principles of disaster risk management in the creation and implementation of national, regional and local sustainable development and poverty reduction strategies, policies, plans and budgets.” Even the Act’s short title reflects the state’s apparent desire to adhere to the current international discourse on disasters and risk. However, it seems that the legislators behind RA 10121 hardly went beyond designing a law that features the apropos buzzwords and is line with other post-1987 legislation. The Local Government Code of 1991 set five percent of estimated revenues from regular sources to serve as a local government unit’s (LGU) calamity fund. RA 10121 hardly alters this by stating that the said percentage is an LGU’s minimum “disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) fund” allocation. If the law is truly in line with UNISDR’s definitions of disaster-related concepts—which highlight community specificity and grounded assessments—why does it still mandate what appear to be merely arbitrary allocations for DRRM funds? Why does it fail to order LGUs to empirically determine the basis for disaster preparedness expenses? One can only wonder what the LGUs affected by the twin catastrophes of 2013 would have done had they been forced to base disaster-related expenditures on the studies of people who utilized more robust and reliable indicators for disaster preparedness than hearsay and watered-down memory. In view of increasing unprecedented risks from natural disasters, and possibly the requisite flexibility in disaster policy and governance, it is imperative to give thought to what LGUs will do moving forward—will they pay more heed to the recommendations of disaster scientists and scholars or will they trust that they will always get by on the kindness of local and foreign donors and the resiliency of Filipinos?


KEY QUESTIONS
  1. In practice, have LGUs been utilizing the leeway given by the law to adjust their annual budget for disaster-related expenses? For example, since RA 10121 came into force, have typhoon-prone LGUs been allocating more than five percent of their estimated revenues from regular sources as DRRM funds?
  2. Given that RA 10121 and related issuances do not specify how disaster preparedness expenses should be determined—at best providing non-exhaustive lists of what such expenses could be—what bases have LGUs used for deciding, for example, that seemingly interminable disaster readiness workshops should be prioritized over the construction of sturdy evacuation centers?
  3. If grounded assessments for disaster preparedness purposes are not the norm, have LGUs relied more on improvisational means of dealing with the aftermath of disasters? How can this “new normal,” if at all, be described?
  4. Is heavy reliance on a community’s “inherent” capacity to adapt and be resilient in the face of, say, the destruction wrought by a catastrophic typhoon a sustainable practice or can we outline a new form of reflexivity among frontliners in the government during natural disasters?
  5. Moving forward, what can be done after the sunset review of the new law?


Click here for the concept paper of the lecture.


PHOTOS