Seminar with Ivan Flis

Are Open Science practices the solution? The case of psychology’s replication crisis

“The seminar takes a critical look at the role of Open Science practices and advocacy within the ongoing replication crisis in psychology. Open Science is a multifaceted interdisciplinary movement that spans the modern university, within which scientists themselves criticize established scientific practices of data collection and storage, development and sharing of analysis pipelines, publication and dissemination of research papers, and the so-called “incentive structures” that organize the hiring and advancement of faculty in Global Northern academia. Many of the Open Science interventions are in practice a type of a digital revolution within the academic system, the paradigmatic example being the push for Open Access in scholarly publishing. Reform centered around Open Science practices is proposed as a solution to the ongoing replication crisis in scientific psychology. In this seminar, I will discuss the impact of Open Science reform while taking into account the intellectual and institutional history of psychology as a science, in order to draw some epistemologically relevant conclusions about the ongoing crisis and its proposed solutions.”

Ivan Flis is a research fellow at UNIRI CAS SEE in Rijeka. He recently obtained his PhD in History and Philosophy of Science at Utrecht University in the Netherlands and before that an MA in Psychology at the University of Zagreb. In his PhD thesis, he researched the role of methodological standardization in psychology’s disciplinary formation in the late 20th century, from the perspective of conventional history of science and scientometrics. His main areas of research are history of 20th century psychology, philosophy of social science, and digital humanities.

The seminar was held on May 15, 2019 at the University of Rijeka Campus, Sveučilišni odjeli building (Ul. Radmile Matejčić 2, 51000 Rijeka).


Jelena Belić

Structural Injustice, Shared Obligations, and Civil Society

In this co-authored paper, we aim to shed more light on the shared obligations of individuals to address structural injustice. Following Iris Young, structural injustice occurs when a myriad of institutional and individual actions leads to outcomes that unfairly disadvantage many people (Young, 2011). To address structural injustice, individuals should take collective actions, including participation in civil society organizations (CSOs), but it is up to them to decide how and when to do so. We call this discretionary view. In the paper, we point to difficulties the discretionary view faces, and we argue that they can be overcome by a proper understanding of the moral relevance of CSOs. Once we acknowledge the importance of the role CSOs play in our moral universe, we might as well accept that our discretion with regard to supporting them is not as broad as many tend to think[1].

[1] Paper co-authored with Zlata Bozac (CEU).

Jelena Belić is a political philosopher working on a variety of issues including theories of cosmopolitanism and global justice, human rights, political obligation. More specifically, her interests include but are not limited to the role of formal and informal institutions in practical reasoning, Hume’s work on conventions, natural duties of justice, the debate between moral and political conceptions of human rights, philosophy of international relations, philosophy of law. Besides doing research, Jelena is also interested in methods of teaching philosophy as a subject. Jelena received her PhD in political philosophy from the Central European University in September 2018 for defending the dissertation “On the State’s Duty to Create a Just World Order”. She is a visiting lecturer at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest.

The seminar was held at the University of Rijeka at January 30, 2019.

 Roswitha Kersten Pejanić

Linguistic Landscape Studies in the Post-Conflict Society: Opportunities and Challenges

Persisting bottom-up discourses of former open conflicts between the different national groups of former Yugoslavia can be perceived in the landscape of the former ‘Serbian Krajina’ in today’s Croatia. Next to legacies of the violent war in the physical landscape (such as ruins, danger signs of land mines, monuments) it is the linguistic landscape of the former war zones that portrays glaring social (ethnical and religious) borders in this previously diverse and heterogeneous area. Instead of a ‘corporate sense’ of Yugoslavia, manifested in the maxim of ‘bratstvo i jedinstvo’, there are still obvious trends of enduring (ethno)nationalism and rehabilitated traditionalist and populist discourses. This seminar will provide central results of an ongoing research project on the linguistic landscape in two rural regions and former war sites in peripheral Croatia, which, next to the physical border between Croatia and Bosnia and Croatia and Serbia, point to the existing inner borders between ethnic groups in the areas researched. The examination of the wealth of signs of ethnic and nationalist tension in the public space (as shown by written messages on house walls, road signs and other public surface) will be at the center of the presentation. The influence of the 1990s’ war and the status of this area as a ‘post-conflict site’ is of particular analytic importance for the research presented. By means of an ethnographic perspective, linguistic signs in public space, their political messages, the corresponding ideological origin and their temporality will be discussed.

Roswitha Kersten-Pejanić completed her PhD thesis about the interrelation of linguistic norms and gender perceptions in Croatian in 2016 at the Center of transdisciplinary gender studies, Humboldt University. She holds a magister degree in History and Serbian/Croatian from Humboldt University and a master degree in EU Studies from the Centre International de Formation Européenne. From 2010-2018 she also worked as a lecturer at Humboldt-University and from 2016 until 208 she was a trainer and tutor for EU application writing at EUFRAK-EuroConsults in Berlin.

Since June 2018 Roswitha is a research fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies – South Eastern Europe in Rijeka, Croatia, where for the next two years she will be working on her post-doc project “Linguistic Landscapes at the margins: Performativity of ethnic belonging and memory politics in Croatian post-conflict border regions”. She receives funding for this project from the German Research Foundation (DFG).

The seminar was held at the University of Rijeka on January 29, 2019.

Rory Archer

To the Northwest! Intra-Yugoslav Albanian migration (1953-1989)

“Researchers have explored many aspects of Albanian migration – so much so that one renowned scholar of the field, Russel King, described Albania as a ‘laboratory’ for the study of migration and development. Despite the large number of studies examining the experience of Albanian migrants in
countries like Greece, Italy and Switzerland (and the impact of migration in the towns and villages in Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia) one crucial part of the story is missing. What about the many Albanians from Kosovo (and Macedonia) who migrated within Yugoslavia during the socialist period in considerable numbers?

Albanians were the largest non-Slavic population in Yugoslavia, reaching up to 8 per cent of the population by the 1980s. Predominantly rural in origin, Albanian labour migrants gravitated to industrial centres around the country in search of work. This proposed research project explores the case of Albanian labour migration from the Southeast of Yugoslavia to the country’s northwest (Croatia and Slovenia) between 1953 and 1989 through historical and historical-anthropological

The first research objective of the research is to provide a historical survey to show how the migration of Yugoslav Albanians to Croatia and Slovenia was facilitated and understood by the authorities. The second objective explores how the local communities in Croatia and Slovenia understood and managed the migration. Most importantly, the third objective explores how migration was understood by the Albanian migrants themselves. The fourth and final objective is to compare intra-Yugoslav Albanian migration to the better-documented socialist-era Yugoslav migration to capitalist Western Europe as well as Yugoslav rural-to-urban migration trends. Methodologically, the research relies on the analysis of library and archival documents and extensive oral history interviews. Oral history will be undertaken by the project researchers in two case study sites of Albanian migration in Croatia and Slovenia.

The research engages with recent scholarly innovations in SEE studies of race, ethnicity, class, gender and the interaction of these categories of identification in a research paradigm of intersectionality. It hypothesises that the experience of migration for Albanians was shaped by a range of factors including religion (Islamic, Catholic or secular), gender (male or female?), place of origin (rural or urban?), and political orientation (loyal communist or nationalist sympathiser?). These categories intersect, resulting in different material outcomes for the individuals concerned. The goal of the research is to carefully unpack these outcomes. The project contributes to debates in the fields of Southeast European migration history and Yugoslav historiography. More broadly for migration studies, the empirical case offers an instructive example of cross-cultural migration taking place within state borders in a context of socialist modernisation.”

Rory Archer is a social historian who works on the 20th century Balkans. He is interested in labour, gender, (post)socialism and the ways in which macro level events and processes are experienced, understood and negotiated in micro, everyday contexts. He obtained his PhD in History from the University of Graz in December 2015 and from 2016 to 2018 worked in the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London as Mellon postdoctoral fellow. Since 2014 he has worked on a research project Between class and nation: Working class communities in 1980s Serbia and Montenegro financed by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF). He continues to explore the role of politicised labour and working class subjectivities in the crises of late Yugoslav socialism and the demise of the state and have published work on this in Labor History, Social History and History and Anthropology.

The seminar was held at the University of Rijeka on January 28th, 2019.

Natasha Jankovic

#rijeka_terristories: New Media Atlas of Architecture or Profile of One City

#rijeka_terristories is a hashtag used by Nataša Janković within her newly formed Instagram webpage Rijeka terristories This webpage was launched as part of a research project  – Re/I:translating terRI[s]tories: architectural stories about Rijeka’s territory with the purpose of a methodological examination of new media forms for presentation and dissemination of results derived from the architectural research. Rijeka terristories Instagram webpage refers to re:reading and re:translating some of the terRI(s)tories (architectural stories about Rijeka’s territory) with the aim of transcription / documenting the only constant thing about cities – their transformation (you can read (in Croatian) more about project development here: For this reason, this webpage may be considered as a specific new media atlas of architecture – i.e. portrait, or profile of one city, that was created through methodological exploring through printed and new media forms of representation and dissemination of research results. The main contribution of this project is the potential use of its results for the purpose of education about or promotion of Rijeka city.

The material presented within rijeka_terristories Instagram page follows 20 thematic maps (developed within the research: Architectural terRI(s)tories: mapping the process of city territory transformation) grouped in relation to the dominant factor of space production): socialscape (landscape of society), powerscape (landscape of power), visionscape (landscape of visions), memoryscape (landscape of memory places), alterscape (landscope of the spatial alternatives), as well as spaces of porosity (empty spaces within the urban landscape). These thematic maps emphasize the urban transformation of the 20th century Rijeka through the presentation of prominent architectural and urban spaces important for the socio-ideological, political, economic, infrastructural and cultural space production of Rijeka

( Here ( you can find maps, objects and itineraries in Rijeka that you can be interested in, so brows, follow, repost or like it, or just take a look at #rijeka_terristories before Nataša take us to a journey through this new media architectural atlas, i.e. profile of a Rijeka city! 

Nataša Janković, PhD, architect, currently in the position of research fellow and teaching associate of the University of Belgrade – Faculty of Architecture and postdoc research fellow of the University of Rijeka – CAS SEE. She is active in different fields of architecture – research: publishes in journals, books and conference proceedings and also actively organizes conferences and workshops; design: participates in exhibitions and architectural and urban competitions, but also do some graphic design; practice: together with two colleagues (M&M) run an architectural studio N2M (based in Belgrade) that deals with architectural design and construction; but she also tries to interconnect all of this with the architectural education: actively engaged within the educational process of the Faculty of Architecture in Belgrade, but often acts as a guest critic within different institutions both national and international. So far, her particular research interests is given to the topic of the relationship between architecture and territory, architecture and nature, as well as city territory transformation and its mapping.
She seeks to read some of the terri(s)tories (architectural inscriptions within the territory); but she also wishes to mark the territory: by making an architectural gesture in a natural environment, in order to write some new terri(S)tory.

The seminar was held at the University of Rijeka on January 28th, 2019.

Olimpia Giuliana Loddo

How to understand the normative nature of a picture?

“Pictures have often been considered as means of representation or as forms of expression. However, an agent can use pictures for different goals (Mitchell, Nyíri) and more specifically, pictures can have a normative sense (Lorini).

The expression ‘normative sense’ is vague and it hides different possible meanings. In general, it is possible to use a picture to impose a norm (e.g. traffic signs, urban planning), in this case, some scholars talk about graphic rules or drawn norms (Moroni and Lorini, Maynard).

It is also possible to use a picture to translate a norm: this is a specific form of intersemiotic translation (Jakobson). The intersemiotic translation of rules can be a precious instrument of legal clarification: for instance, in contractual design. In this case, the normative picture is a partial or total visualisation of normative text (Haapio).

This paper aims to point out that the normative nature of the drawing reflects the intention behind the drawing activity or the attitude of the users of the drawings.

In fact, on the one hand, an agent can produce a picture or locate it in a particular place to create a new norm, in the matter in question, the activity of the drawer could be considered part of the procedure that leads to the creation of a norm.

On the other hand, an agent can produce a picture that refers to an existing norm. The production of a picture that represents an existing norm can have different functions that I will point out by analysing three different examples. The first example concerns the activity of a contract designer that can use the picture to clarify the clauses of a commercial contract (this can transform a contract into a valuable instrument of management). Moreover, a second example concerns an activist that can illustrate several norms to overcome the linguistic and technical barriers between the lawgiver and the potential norms’ addresses. The third case relates the activity of a painter that produces normative pictures to reinforce norms already valid in a community.

The different forms of normative visualisation can follow specific strategies. In general, there are at least three different strategies of norm visualisation: Pushmi-pullyu representations (i.e., in R. Millikan’s lexicon, forms of normative visualization that appeal to more primitive mechanisms of imitation); the representation of the unpleasant consequences of the norm violation; the creation of a system of symbolic graphic representations. The different, forms of norms visualisation can reflect and be influenced by the norm’s typology.

However, the different forms of norm visualisation do not reflect the relation between norms and pictures. In other words, in this presentation, I will show that it is impossible to understand the specific function a normative picture without analysing both the actual use of that picture and the social and historical context in which that picture is produced. The bare observation of a picture cannot reveal its specific normative nature.”

Olimpia G. Loddo earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Law from the University of Milan in 2012 and cooperates as postdoctoral volunteer research assistant with the Department of Law of the University of Cagliari. She is assistant editor in “Argumenta. Italian Journal of Analytic Philosophy”. Her current research interests  include general theory of law, social ontology, customary law, philosophy of norms, deontic logic, phenomenology of law. She is the author of several articles published in (national and international) peer reviewed journals. Essays and translations (from English and German) by Olimpia Loddo have also been published in edited collections on phenomenology of law, anthropology of revenge, philosophy of images. She is co-editor (with Pier Luigi Lecis, Giuseppe Lorini, Vinicio Busacchi, and Pietro Salis) of the edited collection “Truth, Image and Normativity”. She edited (with Roberto Pusceddu) the book “Anancastico in Deontica” [The Anankastic in Deontics], LED, 2017 (auth. Giuseppe Lorini). She is the author of the book “Ideologie e concetti in azienda. Un’analisi filosofica degli usi aziendali” [Ideology and concepts in the Firm. A philosophical analysis of company customs], ESI, 2017.

Davide Pala

Experts, Good Citizens, Democratic Public Debates and Global Warming

“Among climate experts there is an overwhelming consensus that (i) global warming is occurring, that (ii) this fact is alarming and that (iii) humans are causally responsible for it. Despite this, 16% of American citizens deny that (i) global warming is occurring, 48% of them question (ii) its seriousness, and 50% think that (iii) human activity has no role in causing it (Anderson 2011). These discrepancies can be observed in many other countries as well.

In this talk I will provide a normative framework to assess the attitude of those citizens that, like American citizens, in democratic public debates concerning the elaboration of public policies, mistrust experts,  i.e.  trustworthy  epistemic  authorities,  in  regard  to  beliefs  that  are  justified and  almost undisputed within the scientific community. I will argue that this attitude is bad, because citizens that show it do not possess the virtue of the epistemic trust in trustworthy epistemic authorities (ETITEA), which is demanded by the non-exhaustive ideal of the good citizens publicly debating in democratic contexts. According  to  this  non-exhaustive  ideal,  as  a  necessary  but  not  sufficient condition,  in democratic public debates citizens trust trustworthy epistemic authorities as a way to respect themselves and each other as peers in circumstances of epistemic dependence. In more detail, I will show that the virtue of ETITEA is required by three ideas specifying the non-exhaustive ideal of the good citizens publicly debating in democratic contexts, i.e. (i) the idea of rational citizens, (ii) the idea of reasonable citizens, and (iii) the idea of responsible citizens.

First, ETITEA is demanded by the idea of rational citizens (i). Rational citizens normally want to believe justified beliefs. Moreover, they want to act successfully, and know that justified beliefs lead to successful actions more than unjustified beliefs. Yet rational citizens know that in most domains, i.e. all domains in which they are not experts, they do not have first-hand evidence justifying the related beliefs, and cannot even acquire the expertise necessary to understand either the evidence or the claims relative to the evidence. In the light of this, rational citizens dismiss the idea of epistemic independence as irrational, acknowledge their epistemic dependence, and show trust in trustworthy epistemic authorities and their claims. In this way they can rationally hold beliefs in domains in which they are not experts, successfully act on their basis, and show respect to themselves.

Second, ETITEA is required by the idea of reasonable citizens (ii). On the one hand, reasonable citizens respect a reciprocity constraint, therefore they restrain themselves from publicly advancing unjustified and highly sectarian beliefs, because they do not meet almost uncontroversial scientific standards and would not be endorsed by everyone. On the other, reasonable citizens accept, among the burdens of judgement, the fact of epistemic dependence on epistemic authorities as a condition that all citizens (more or less) equally share. Both features lead reasonable citizens to acknowledge the need of ETITEA as a way to respect each other as peers in circumstances of epistemic dependence.

Third, ETITEA is demanded by the idea of responsible citizens (iii). Responsible citizens do not want to unduly harm others and know that public policies based on unjustified beliefs likely harm others. Also, they are aware that they cannot autonomously shape justified beliefs in those domains in which they have no direct expertise. Responsible citizens, therefore, in public debates concerning the elaboration of public policies show trust in trustworthy epistemic authorities in those domains in which they are laypersons. This is a way to respect both co-citizens and citizens of other countries.

Having elaborated this normative framework, I will employ it to assess the public mistrusting attitude  showed,  within  democratic  contexts,  by  citizens  toward  those  trustworthy  epistemic authorities addressing global warming, and argue that it is bad because it shows a lack of rationality, reasonableness, and responsibility. Finally, I will outline some public and feasible strategies that should be used to modify this bad attitude.”

Davide Pala is a Post-doc Fellow at the CAS-SEE of Rijeka. Previously he was a Post-doc Fellow at the “Fondazione Burzio” of Turin and a PhD Student at the University of Turin, in the Department of Cultures, Politics and Society. He was Visiting Post-doc Fellow at the University of Frankfurt (Justitia Amplificata) and at the University of Manchester (Mancept). He works in the field of normative political theory applied to international issues. In particular, his research focuses on global justice, world poverty and economic inequalities. On the matter he wrote several articles focused on institutional cosmopolitanism, capability approach, legal positivism and nationalism. He is currently developing a normative republican account of world poverty.


The Pure Normativity of Realism

“In this paper, I investigate the question of whether realism can provide a substantive normative standard to evaluate institutions. While classical realists focus on the individual dimension of political actors and their freedoms and responsibilities, many contemporary realists adopt broadly liberal values for political institutions. Drawing from discussions about the realistic conception of politics, I defend a functional understanding of politics as selection and implementation of collective decisions within a social group. A functional normative standard can then be derived: political institutions are ‘good’ when they adequately perform this function, independently of their moral qualities, in the same way a ‘good soldier’ is someone who is good at fighting (its function), independently of whether he is a good man. This normative standard is independent from morality and internal to politics. If being a good man requires abstaining from violence, one cannot be a good man (in the moral sense) and a good soldier (in the functional sense), similarly to how Machiavelli claimed that a good Christian cannot be a good politician. Realists not only claim this independence of politics, but often also its priority. The political function is vital, because it is required to preserve the survival of the social group and its individuals. This is the ‘pure’ normative dimension of political realism, which takes priority – but not exclusivity – over other moral considerations, and is thus ‘the first virtue of political institutions’ because those which do not express it cannot sustain themselves through time.”

Carlo Burelli is a current CAS Fellow at the University of Rijeka, where he works on a realistic theory of order, as the first virtue of political institutions. Previously, he had a two year Post-Doc Fellowship in the ERC Project REScEU where he investigated political conflicts and realistic forms of solidarity. He received his PhD in 2015 from Università Statale di Milano defending the thesis: “The Normative Power of Necessity: Making Sense of Political Realism”. In 2014, he was a visiting PhD at the University of Cambridge under Raymond Geuss. He has written articles on Political Realism (Towards a Realistic Conception of Politics, 2017), Solidarity (Realistic Solidarity for the Real EU, 2016) and the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (Lex Facit Veritatem, 2015; Subjectivity is Objective, 2017). He is also the author of a short monograph on game theoretic interpretations of Hobbes’s “state of nature” (E fu lo Stato, 2010).