Suchergebnisse

This paper proposes a closer view into how space is structured with one single purpose: to exercise power, both in physical and structural, or rather physical–structural form, bending and twisting human behavior around it. Separation walls embody frustration that stems from unresolved traumas of the past that perpetuate the impotence to solve or re-solve these traumas. Individuals living in the shadows of such walls have incorporated the pain of these traumas into their identities, a pain that leads to an external expression of the incorporation that is then directed towards the wall changing its purpose, turning it into a canvas of creative capitulation in front of the power represented by it. The artifacts that start populating and decorating such walls function as a form of aesthetic domestication, shifting impotence into potency, offering a new semiotic field for the definition of the term "aesthetic resistance." The objects discussed in this paper include the Berlin Wall and the Israeli–Palestinian separation wall (as seen from Netiv HaAsara and Bethlehem). Walls are not specifically defined in this text. They can be metaphorical, and conventional (without material representation), they can be represented by differences that separate people, institutions, and political structures from each other. This text has not been written with the desire to offer a thorough academic introduction into "teichopolitics" (the politics of walls); instead, it provides a phenomenological "description" of a sort of different experiences regarding various ways of seeing, feeling, and understanding walls.

PurposeThe perceived risk of services is not characterized by being inevitably higher than that of tangible products but rather by the fact that performance risk is bilateral and process‐like. The aim of this paper is to explore the nature of this competence‐based risk perception during different project transactions.Design/methodology/approachThe research approach is a qualitative, exploring one. The elements of the theoretical framework have been explored with the help of parallel supplier and buyer in‐depth interviews. In terms of industry coverage the focus of the study was in the traditional engineering areas including some other players of b2b project markets in the participant group.FindingsBuyers' perceived performance risk can be linked to the presumed weaknesses of the supplier in professional background, personnel, size or technology, and to certain external factors. Risk perception coming from mainly competence asymmetry can be reduced by interactive communication but it must be adjusted to the buyer's comprehension level. Intensive two‐way communication may be to justify the appropriateness of the buyer's decision.Practical implicationsUnderstanding the risk perception of buyers can improve the management of purchasing activity and the purchasing process as well as the proactive behaviour of the supplier. Exploring the risk behaviour of the supplier can help to harmonize the selling/procuring activities of the supplier/buyer.Originality/valueThe originality of the paper lies in the process‐like, bilateral modelling of risk perception in the service transaction. Based upon this approach a comparative interviewing has been carried out.