Una habitación propia: sobre premios literarios y escritoras (1944-1960)

En la década de los 50 se produce un hecho insólito en el sector editorial español: el palmarés de los principales premios literarios se llena de nombres de mujer, que empuñan su pluma animadas por el éxito fortuito e inesperado de una joven desconocida llamada Carmen Laforet. En la España de posguerra, los premios se convierten en la vía –casi exclusiva- de acceso al mundo literario, para numerosos escritores que, de otro modo, hubieran tenido mucho más difícil la entrada al mercado editorial. En cuanto a las escritoras, la plataforma de lanzamiento que suponen los premios para ellas es incuestionable; la mayoría de las novelistas españolas más destacadas de la segunda mitad del siglo XX han iniciado su andadura literaria de la mano de algún galardón, tal es el caso de: Carmen Laforet, Ana María Matute, Carmen Kurtz, Carmen Martín Gaite, Mercedes Salisachs, Soledad Puértolas o Almudena Grandes, por citar solo algunos ejemplos. Los premios literarios, en ese papel de promotores de la cultura y de la literatura que tienen durante las dos primeras décadas del franquismo, se configuran como la habitación propia del siglo XX necesaria para que pudiera operarse la profesionalización de la mujer escritora, y adquieren una importancia extraordinaria, sobre todo, durante los años 50, y rescatan parte del modesto espacio conquistado por las mujeres durante el primer tercio del siglo XX (Concha Méndez, Carmen Conde, Carmen de Burgos, Josefina de la Torre, María Zambrano, Rosa Chacel, etcétera). Al primer Premio Nadal (1944) se presentaron veintiséis novelas, de las cuales resultó ganadora Nada de Carmen Laforet, que obtuvo un rotundo éxito de crítica y de público. Este hecho, a priori irrelevante, marca un hito fundamental dentro de la narrativa española de posguerra, en general, y de la literatura escrita por mujeres, en particular. La rápida e inesperada fama que adquiere, la por aquel entonces absolutamente desconocida, Carmen Laforet a raíz de obtener el Nadal animó a muchas mujeres a presentarse a los numerosos premios que van surgiendo por estos años. El triunfo de Laforet se configura, por tanto, como baluarte de autoestima y confianza para las mujeres que deseaban ser escritoras y el Premio Nadal, en particular, era el título que lo así lo acreditaba. Sin embargo, la entrada de la mujer en el campo literario no era posible sin las pertinentes luchas internas que alteran el orden establecido, términos en los que se expresan los propios medios de comunicación para referirse a tal fenómeno. Los críticos y periodistas se hacen eco de este rápido e inusual ascenso de la mujer en el parnaso literario, a través de artículos, a veces no exentos de cierta ironía, sarcasmo y burla, quizás la mejor prueba de la repercusión que alcanza. Sin embargo, a pesar de la proliferación de escritoras que aparecen por estos años y a la aparente profesionalización de la mujer en el ámbito de las letras, la imagen que se difunde y publicita —incluso por parte de las propias autoras— desde los medios de comunicación es la de escritora-ángel del hogar, lo cual no debe extrañarnos si recordamos el carácter y los principios de la educación nacional-católica para con la mujer, según la cual su primera y principal función consistía en ser buena hija, esposa y madre. Como veremos, la mujer escritora asciende velozmente por la escalera de los premios al mundo editorial durante la década del 50 que constituye el primer escalón conquistado por las escritoras que, gracias al pedestal que les ofrecen los premios literarios, a la publicidad y a la repercusión mediática que conllevan, son vistas, leídas y vendidas. A partir de ese momento se vuelven visibles a los lectores y a la industria editorial, adquiriendo, de este modo, existencia en el campo cultural y literario.Universidad de Málaga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucía Tec

An Irregular Challenge

This paper presents different strategies in teaching a foreign language. They are based on an audiovisual methodology. On the one hand, the student feels lan- guagealive from the very beginning, and in a parallel form, s/he plays an active role in her/his learning. On the other hand, the teacher becomes a learner in an irregular way.

Mirando hacia dentro: la situación de la obra de las mujeres en el panorama artístico actual.

Sin resume

Significatividad de la implementación curricular del modelo de Van Hiele

Este trabajo analiza la significatividad de la aplicación del modelo de Van Hiele en Geometría de 1o de ESO. Por una parte, se aplicó un cuestionario válido y fiable a 137 alumnos antes y después de estudiar la asignatura, determinando los errores al inicio del curso y los persistentes tras el estudio y constatando la inexistencia de diferencias significativas en el aprendizaje por razón de género. Por otra parte, se realizó un estudio cuasi-experimental del aprendizaje en dos grupos de 18 y 21 alumnos de la muestra anterior. Uno de estos grupos se seleccionó como grupo experimental y utilizó las unidades didácticas elaboradas para la investigación, basadas en el modelo de Van Hiele. El grupo de contraste siguió la metodología tradicional. Se encontraron diferencias significativas favorables al grupo experimental y se analizó en detalle la corrección de los errores

Social capital and knowledge in interorganizational networks: Their joint effect on innovation

This research analyzes the effects of interorganizational links on innovation using a comprehensive framework that integrates three research streams: social capital, knowledge based view and innovation. Using data from 143 R&D and/or marketing departments of innovative manufacturing and service companies, our results show that while knowledge complexity, per se, exerts a clear influence on the degree of innovations radicalness, the effect of knowledge tacitness appears only when it is combined with social capital. Similarly, the mere existence of strong cooperation agreements (relational social capital) does not guarantee more radical innovations. It is only when this social capital is combined with tacit knowledge that it really produces more innovative products. We also find that such radical products have an important impact on firm performance.: Innovation; radicalness; social capital; knowledge complexity; knowledge tacitness; firm performance

Do best and worst innovative companies differ in terms of intellectual capital, knowledge and radicalness?

This paper differentiates “best innovative companies” from “worst innovative companies” and it takes into account three separate bodies of literature— intellectual capital, knowledge-based view, and innovation literatures. Based on a sample of 181 firms which belong to manufacturing and services industries, our findings show that best innovative performers companies (considering both financial and non-financial dimensions of innovation success) present systematically higher scores for all dimensions of intellectual capital: human, organizational and social capital) than worst innovation performers. Knowledge exchange and combination seems to be characteristic of most successful innovators, but no differences in systemic, tacit, complex and not observable knowledge have been found for these companies. Finally, regarding radicalness, firms with more innovation success provide new products or services that incorporates a new technology and new customer benefits (uniqueness), while firms with less innovation success laughs new products or services which are unfamiliar or difficult to understand by customers.Mobile-shopping

Review of Terms and Definitions Used in Descriptions of Running Shoes

Objective: Our study aim is to identify and describe the definitions used for different types of running shoes. In addition, we highlight the existence of gaps in these concepts and propose possible new approaches. Methods: This review was undertaken in line with the guidelines proposed by Green et al., based on a literature search (until December 2019) of the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Google Scholar databases. A total of 23 papers met the inclusion criteria applied to identify the definition of running shoes. Results: Although there is a certain consensus on the characteristics of minimalist footwear, it is also described by other terms, such as barefoot-style or barefoot-simulating. Diverse terms are also used to describe other types of footwear, and in these cases, there is little or no consensus regarding their characteristics. Conclusions: The terms barefoot-simulated footwear, barefoot-style footwear, lightweight shoes and full minimalist shoes are all used to describe minimalist footwear. The expressions partial minimalist, uncushioned minimalist and transition shoes are used to describe footwear with non-consensual characteristics. Finally, labels such as shod shoes, standard cushioned running shoes, modern shoes, neutral protective running shoes, conventional, standardised, stability style or motion control shoes span a large group of footwear styles presenting different properties

Do best and worst innovative companies differ in terms of intellectual capital, knowledge and radicalness?

This paper differentiates “best innovative companies” from “worst innovative companies” and it takes into account three separate bodies of literature— intellectual capital, knowledge-based view, and innovation literatures. Based on a sample of 181 firms which belong to manufacturing and services industries, our findings show that best innovative performers companies (considering both financial and non-financial dimensions of innovation success) present systematically higher scores for all dimensions of intellectual capital: human, organizational and social capital) than worst innovation performers. Knowledge exchange and combination seems to be characteristic of most successful innovators, but no differences in systemic, tacit, complex and not observable knowledge have been found for these companies. Finally, regarding radicalness, firms with more innovation success provide new products or services that incorporates a new technology and new customer benefits (uniqueness), while firms with less innovation success laughs new products or services which are unfamiliar or difficult to understand by customers.Mobile-shopping

A Multi-Criteria Reference Point Based Approach for Assessing Regional Innovation Performance in Spain

[EN] The evaluation of regional innovation performance through composite innovation indices can serve as a valuable tool for policy-making. While discussion on the best methodology to construct composite innovation indices continues, we are interested in deepening the use of reference levels and the aggregation issue. So far, additive aggregation methods are, largely, the most widespread aggregation rule, thus allowing for full compensability among single indicators. In this paper, we present an integrated assessment methodology to evaluate regional innovation performance using the Multi-Reference Point based Weak and Strong Composite Indicator (MRP-WSCI) approach, which allows defining reference levels and different degrees of compensability. As an example of application to the Regional Innovation Scoreboard, the proposed technique is developed to measure the innovation performance of Spain¿s regions taking into account Spanish and European reference levels. The main features of the proposed approach are: (i) absolute or relative reference levels could be previously defined by the decision maker; (ii) by establishing the reference levels, the resulting composite innovation index is an easy-to-interpret measure; and (iii) the non-compensatory strong composite indicator provides an additional layer of information for policy-making (iv) a visualization tool called Light-Diagram is proposed to track the specific strengths and weaknesses of the regions' innovation performance.This research has been partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Project ECO2016-76567-C4-4-R), by the Regional Government of Andalucia (research group SEJ-417), and by the ERDF funds (Project UMA18-FEDERJA-065).Garcia-Bernabeu, A.; Cabello, JM.; Ruiz, F. (2020). A Multi-Criteria Reference Point Based Approach for Assessing Regional Innovation Performance in Spain. Mathematics. 8(5):1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8050797S12185Hauser, C., Siller, M., Schatzer, T., Walde, J., & Tappeiner, G. (2018). Measuring regional innovation: A critical inspection of the ability of single indicators to shape technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129, 43-55. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.10.019Makkonen, T., & van der Have, R. P. (2012). Benchmarking regional innovative performance: composite measures and direct innovation counts. Scientometrics, 94(1), 247-262. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0753-2Asheim, B. T., Smith, H. L., & Oughton, C. (2011). Regional Innovation Systems: Theory, Empirics and Policy. Regional Studies, 45(7), 875-891. doi:10.1080/00343404.2011.596701Buesa, M., Heijs, J., & Baumert, T. (2010). The determinants of regional innovation in Europe: A combined factorial and regression knowledge production function approach. Research Policy, 39(6), 722-735. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.016Di Cagno, D., Fabrizi, A., Meliciani, V., & Wanzenböck, I. (2016). The impact of relational spillovers from joint research projects on knowledge creation across European regions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 108, 83-94. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.04.021Capello, R., & Lenzi, C. (2012). Territorial patterns of innovation: a taxonomy of innovative regions in Europe. The Annals of Regional Science, 51(1), 119-154. doi:10.1007/s00168-012-0539-8Navarro, M., Gibaja, J. J., Bilbao-Osorio, B., & Aguado, R. (2009). Patterns of Innovation in EU-25 Regions: A Typology and Policy Recommendations. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 27(5), 815-840. doi:10.1068/c0884rPinto, H. (2009). The Diversity of Innovation in the European Union: Mapping Latent Dimensions and Regional Profiles. European Planning Studies, 17(2), 303-326. doi:10.1080/09654310802553571Ruiz, F., El Gibari, S., Cabello, J. M., & Gómez, T. (2020). MRP-WSCI: Multiple reference point based weak and strong composite indicators. Omega, 95, 102060. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2019.04.003Hollenstein, H. (1996). A composite indicator of a firm’s innovativeness. An empirical analysis based on survey data for Swiss manufacturing. Research Policy, 25(4), 633-645. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(95)00874-8Gu *, W., & Tang, J. (2004). Link between innovation and productivity in Canadian manufacturing industries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(7), 671-686. doi:10.1080/1043890410001686806Tang, J., & Le, C. D. (2007). Multidimensional Innovation and Productivity. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(7), 501-516. doi:10.1080/10438590600914585Kumar, S., Haleem, A., & Sushil. (2019). Assessing innovativeness of manufacturing firms using an intuitionistic fuzzy based MCDM framework. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26(6), 1823-1844. doi:10.1108/bij-12-2017-0343Grupp, H., & Mogee, M. E. (2004). Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators? Research Policy, 33(9), 1373-1384. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.007Schibany, A., & Streicher, G. (2008). The European Innovation Scoreboard: drowning by numbers? Science and Public Policy, 35(10), 717-732. doi:10.3152/030234208x398512Kozłowski, J. (2015). Innovation indices: the need for positioning them where they properly belong. Scientometrics, 104(3), 609-628. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1632-4Carayannis, E. G., Goletsis, Y., & Grigoroudis, E. (2018). Composite innovation metrics: MCDA and the Quadruple Innovation Helix framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 131, 4-17. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.008Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M., & Torrisi, G. (2018). On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness. Social Indicators Research, 141(1), 61-94. doi:10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9El Gibari, S., Gómez, T., & Ruiz, F. (2018). Building composite indicators using multicriteria methods: a review. Journal of Business Economics, 89(1), 1-24. doi:10.1007/s11573-018-0902-zRuiz, F., Cabello, J. M., & Luque, M. (2011). An application of reference point techniques to the calculation of synthetic sustainability indicators. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(1), 189-197. doi:10.1057/jors.2009.187Cabello, J. M., Ruiz, F., Pérez-Gladish, B., & Méndez-Rodríguez, P. (2014). Synthetic indicators of mutual funds’ environmental responsibility: An application of the Reference Point Method. European Journal of Operational Research, 236(1), 313-325. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.11.031Ruiz, F., Cabello, J. M., & Pérez-Gladish, B. (2018). Building Ease-of-Doing-Business synthetic indicators using a double reference point approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 131, 130-140. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.005El Gibari, S., Gómez, T., & Ruiz, F. (2018). Evaluating university performance using reference point based composite indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1235-1250. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.10.003Mazziotta, M., & Pareto, A. (2017). Measuring Well-Being Over Time: The Adjusted Mazziotta–Pareto Index Versus Other Non-compensatory Indices. Social Indicators Research, 136(3), 967-976. doi:10.1007/s11205-017-1577-5Munda, G., & Nardo, M. (2009). Noncompensatory/nonlinear composite indicators for ranking countries: a defensible setting. Applied Economics, 41(12), 1513-1523. doi:10.1080/00036840601019364Cabello, J. M., Navarro, E., Prieto, F., Rodríguez, B., & Ruiz, F. (2014). Multicriteria development of synthetic indicators of the environmental profile of the Spanish regions. Ecological Indicators, 39, 10-23. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.01