Libraries and Canon-Formation: the Case of English in the Collections of the Library of the Faculty of Humanities, Lisbon University

Abstract: The project for researching the role played by libraries in canon-formation (namely through their policies regarding the creation, organization, preservation, and utilization of the collections) will be presented and discussed. We selected the Library of the Faculty of Humanities, Lisbon University, a modern academic library, created in 1859, by royal decree of D. Pedro V, following his canonical choice. Actually, the two contemporary rulers of new Britannia— Prince Albert, his cousin, and Queen Victoria—held this king in high consideration for his outstanding contribution to Portuguese modernisation. Representing various fields of study, the collections were decisive to canon-formation in the Faculty of Humanities. Thus, we have been trying to answer the following questions: who has been creating, organizing, preserving, and utilizing the collections, from the mid-nineteenth century onwards? When, where and how? Presently, we are studying the collections in English, namely the works belonging or referring to the long nineteenth century. Richard Garnett’s “The International Library of Famous Literature” (London, 1899) is our first case-study. The anthology determined the Western literary, cultural and visual canon at the turning of the century, as evidenced by comparing it to the Portuguese and Spanish editions, published at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Promoting self-regulated learning in technology enhanced learning environments : keeping a digital track of the learning process

Tese de doutoramento (co-tutela), Psicologia (Psicologia da Educação), Faculdade de Psicologia da Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação da Universidade de Coimbra, Technial University of Darmstadt, 2014

Stirner – on the brink of scientific thought

Stirner and Feyerabend, despite being historically a hundred and fifty years apart, seem to have been of the same mind in revolting against the methodological explaining of what cannot methodologically be explained. Stirner attempted an explanation in a more intuitive version, Feyerabend in a more sophisticated one. For both thinkers it is obviously important to sustain dissent with the assumption that method is the one and only vital promoter of scientific progress. They equally voice the opinion that, despite science itself producing inconsistencies as well as results, its proceedings nonetheless follow a certain rationale. But to codify a definite approach to phenomena or matter i.e. to establish a definite method for taking a look into things turns science into religion and scientists into believers. As a result no new insights are to be gained.