Suchergebnisse

In this conversation essay, the authors incorporate teaching assistants (TAs) into pedagogical theorizing through what they call the teaching triad, an analytic heuristic to understand faculty-TA-undergraduate interactions. TAs are graduate students who are tasked with running discussion sections, smaller settings where undergraduates interact more directly with the material and one another. Yet, faculty pedagogies enable or constrain the work of TAs and shape classroom climates. We discuss three types of faculty pedagogies and their effects: (1) authoritarian pedagogies, wherein faculty exhibit inflexible, controlling behaviors that create a silencing and distrustful climate; (2) absentee pedagogies, characterized by a lack of faculty presence, which results in additional labor for TAs and confusion and panic for students; and (3) advocate pedagogies, which involve proactively engaged and flexible faculty approaches, cultivating an empowered environment. Understanding these dynamics is important for first-generation and/or working-class students, particularly those of color, who already face barriers to learning.

In the literature on firms and organizations, in economics, sociology, and business studies, there has been an increasing awareness that firms need others, outside the firm, in order to function, and particularly in order to innovate. This has led to the proliferation of studies on subjects such as outsourcing, inter-firm alliances, and networks of firms. Still, though, most of these studies focus on dyads of firms (i.e., strategic interaction of firms). Even in network studies, networks were seen mostly as aggregates of dyads. In contrast, in network analysis in sociology there has been, for some time, attention to roles and effects of third parties and of triads. In particular, the work of Ronald Burt (e.g. Burt, 1992) noted the importance, especially in the context of the acquisition of new information, of being a third party in 'bridging structural holes' between unconnected nodes or networks, and the opportunities for advantage as a tertius gaudens (laughing third) in playing agents off against each other. While in network analysis this attention to triads is relatively new, it has, in fact, a long history, going back, in particular, to the work of the sociologist Georg Simmel. A recent publication that acknowledges this is Krackhardt (1999).

Einleitung -- Jugendliche In Und Zwischen Institutionen Der Medizinisch Therapeutischen Behandlung, Erziehung Und Sozialen Kontrolle -- Adoleszente Entwicklung Und Sozialisation Im Kontext Psychosozialer Krisen, Psychischer Krankheit Und Psychiatrischer Behandlung -- Theoretische Annäherungen An Die Strukturelle Verfasstheit Kinder Und Jugendpsychiatrischer Kliniken Und Einer Stationären Jugendpsychiatrischen Behandlung -- Adoleszente Sozialisationsprozesse Im Kontext Jugendpsychiatrischer Behandlungen Erforschen – Zur Methodologischen Und Methodischen Anlage Der Untersuchung -- Fallstudien -- Adoleszenz Im Spannungsfeld Der Jugendpsychiatrischen Triade – Theoriebildung -- Fazit Und Ausblick.

Die Erfahrungen Jugendlicher, die aufgrund psychosozialer Krisen in einer psychiatrischen Klinik stationär behandelt werden, wurden bislang aus verstärkt psychologischen und teils auch institutionell-normativen Blickwinkeln betrachtet. Die vorliegende Untersuchung rückt aus sozialisationstheoretischer Perspektive den Zusammenhang von Jugend und Psychiatrie ins Zentrum und legt erstmalig Erkenntnisse zu Erfahrungen und Bewältigungsformen von psychiatrisch behandelten Jugendlichen sowie damit verbundenen Sozialisationsdynamiken in der Familie und Schule vor. Sie geht der Frage nach, wie Jugendliche die biografische Phase ihrer stationären Behandlung erleben und diese vor dem Hintergrund adoleszenter Transformationsprozesse und ihrer bisherigen Sozialisationsgeschichte deuten. Anhand der Rekonstruktion von Einzel- und Familieninterviews in zwei Fallstudien werden zwei typologische Verlaufsformen adoleszenter Sozialisationsprozesse herausgearbeitet, welche schliesslich in unterschiedlichen Dimensionen adoleszenter Bildungsprozesse im Kontext einer stationären jugendpsychiatrischen Behandlung verdichtet werden

"In diesem Beitrag wird eine reflexive Analyse darüber geleistet, in welcher Weise Gender-Perspektiven Sozialforschung beeinflussen. Es wird verdeutlicht, dass der sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschungspraxis in der Regel androzentrische und sexistische Positionen unterliegen. Dies hat negative Konsequenzen für Frauen, die in unterschiedlichen sozialwissenschaftlichen Feldern in die Produktion und Dissemination von Wissen involviert sind: Die herrschenden Praktiken behindern Frauen bei der Planung und Durchführung wissenschaftlicher Untersuchung und bei der Veröffentlichung der Forschungsergebnisse. Es handelt sich bei dem Gender-Bias um ein ethisches Problem mit erheblicher Bedeutung für die Sozialforschung. Ethik, die bei jeder Art von Forschungshandeln eine Rolle spielt, ist eng mit Entscheidungen im Forschungsprozess verknüpft, die wiederum durch den unterliegenden Bias gezeichnet sind. Insoweit spielt Ethik eine Schlüsselrolle in all jenen Prozessen, die auf Gender-sensitive Forschung und gegen die Diskriminierung von Frauen bzw. Ungleichheiten zwischen Männern und Frauen hinarbeiten." (Autorenreferat)

"Hanging out" and establishing "rapport" is an essential part of the ethnographic encounter in anthropology. But what happens when the smartphone, seemingly a distraction from the relationship in the making, creates a wall between the anthropologist and the interlocutor? While smartphones have been widely explored as a media technology used by the interlocutors, or as research tools, their affective grip on the researchers themselves has received less attention to date. Based on ethnographic fieldwork conducted with visitors of two youth centers in Vienna, Austria, in 2019, I argue that the moment when the smartphone becomes part of the affective triad, alongside the researcher and the interlocutor, also presents a window on the entanglement of digital technologies with everyday life. Moreover, affective ripples emerging from such irritations also expose underlying assumptions about how ethnographic encounters should ideally proceed and what constitutes rapport and "good" ethnographic relationships, seemingly a prerequisite for successful ethnographies. Hence, affective entanglements and irritations that arise in this context are not disturbances to be discarded or smoothed over in the ethnographic narratives. While the smartphone appears to impair the ethnographic encounter at first, its designed porosity allows the researcher to develop a particular sensitivity to issues of rapport, consent, and privacy, and to negotiate the space of potentiality of ambiguous, door-like situations, thus becoming a methodological blessing rather than a curse.

In this article, I set out different relationships between planning theory, research and practice, drawing on Lacan's "production of four discourses". I argue that each element of the planning theory-research-practice "triad" acts as the discursive "agent" and gives rise to particular kinds of "subject-planner" (the "master", the "expert", the "idealistic" and the "pragmatic") with specific ideological upshots ("hidden" big other, "feigned" big other, hysteria and subjective destitution). Primarily a theoretical discussion, the article is also partially underpinned by my own practical experience in planning. While Lacanian psychoanalytical theory has already entered the planning field, its deployment has been mostly centred on deconstructing both planning decision-making processes and the mediation of planners in creating and implementing plans. Hence, the attempt here is to look in more depth at the "ambivalent" role of the planner as well as to bring in "planning research", as a key, somewhat occluded, element within the discussion on bridging planning theory and practice. Further, in the literature there seems to be a sort of omnipresent assumption that "valid" reflection on planning can only come from the "outside", which in turn perpetuates the role of the academic researcher simply trying to decode and analyse what the practitioner does (or tries to do). Critical impressions from those "out there", "on the job", are still missing. They, far from mere anecdotic accounts, ought to comprise selfinflicted criticism triggered by a sense of discomfort with what's being done - by the hysterical question of "why am I a planner?" and "why I am doing this or that?