Suchergebnisse

Vor etwa zehn Jahren identifizierte eine aufflackernde Debatte die Charakteristika Folgenorientierung, Beratungsbezug und Wissenschaftlichkeit als mögliche Eckpfeiler einer Theorie der Technikfolgenabschätzung (TA). Danach ist es rasch wieder still geworden. Die Beiträge in dem hier vorliegenden TATuP-Thema zeigen jedoch, dass die zentralen Fragen nach der Positionierung von TA und nach ihrer Konzeption der Technikbewertung als Forschungs- und Beratungsprogramm eher an Virulenz gewonnen haben.

That technology matters—and matters profoundly—to the humanities and social sciences is no longer in dispute. But exactly how it informs our understanding of society, now and in the past, remains a matter of scholarly contention. It might be argued that, as the history and sociology of technology moves away from its principal point of origin in the study of Euro-American societies, the questions that technology poses have, if only by virtue of their relative novelty, a particular resonance for the constituent regions of modern Asia—and not least for the societies of South and Southeast Asia that form the subject of this special issue. It is not a question of adopting an approach as unsubtle and outmoded as technological determinism, or of simply extending to one corner of the Asian landmass a set of 'global' theories and histories, with technology as their underpinning, already established and familiar in other contexts. Rather, it is a case of finding and developing a perspective on technology which helps to illuminate the inner histories and local narratives of these regions and which brings to the wider discussion of technology something distinctive, distilled from the outlook and experience of one part of the non-Western world. A desire to move beyond scholarship's still-dominant paradigms of colonialism, nationalism, and development, to explore the multivalent nature of 'everyday life' and enquire into 'the social life of things' as locally constituted, to examine modernity's diverse material forms, technological manifestations, and ideological configurations, to locate the regional roots as well as the exogenous origins of social change and cultural transformation, to situate subaltern experience alongside middle class mores and elite appropriation—all these interlocking considerations have begun to form part of a collective inquiry into the technological histories and cultures of South and Southeast Asia. A scholarly search is clearly under way to establish new methodologies and meanings, new contexts, and conjunctures, which will inform and reinvigorate the history, sociology, anthropology, and geography of these regions and redefine their place within the burgeoning field of science and technology studies.

In recent years, discussion of technology in the nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century colonial world has moved away from earlier insistence on the centrality of imperial agency and the instrumentality of empire's technological "tools" of conquest and exploitation. There has been a broad shift from diffusionist preoccupations with a one-way traffic in "technology transfers" that privileged Euro-American innovation and entrepreneurship, to consideration of the "social life of things" within the colony. This has corresponded with a move away from understanding technology through European representations of machines as the measure of the imperial self and colonized other, to rethinking technology's role in reconfiguring social hierarchies and cultural practices in colonized or semi-colonized non-Western societies. Without ignoring empire's importance in facilitating change or restricting the socio-economic parameters within which innovative technologies might operate, there has been a growing tendency to identify colonialism as a conduit for technological modernity rather than its primary embodiment. The colony is understood as a locally constituted, rather than merely imperially derivative, site for engagement with techno-modernity and its discontents. Scholars now commonly eschew emphasis on the implanting of "big technologies" such as railroads, telegraphs, steamships, modern weaponry, major irrigation works, and electrification systems (capital-intensive, often state-managed technologies that figured proudly in the rhetoric of imperial achievement), in favor of the ways in which these were understood, assimilated, and utilized by local agency. There has also been growing interest in small-scale, "everyday technologies," from the sewing machine, wristwatch, and radio, to the typewriter, camera, and bicycle. Colonial regimes were unable to monopolize or disinclined to control these, and they passed with relative ease into the work-regimes, recreational activities, social life, and cultural aspirations of colonized and postcolonial populations.

The debate about the emerging discipline of IS has been continuing at least since Banville and Landry questioned the possibility of "disciplining" MIS in 1989. Recent papers such as those in the book by Mingers and Stowell introduce fresh viewpoints and reopen the discussion along a new frontier. It would appear that an ontological framework to define a discipline could assist in making sense of what it is that information systems are all about. To this end, we develop a framework which derives from Heidegger's concept of a regional ontology informed by the fundamental ontology of Dasein. This framework draws from Heidegger's work and contends that a discipline also has Dasein's kind of being. Following Heidegger, we arrive at a static model of a discipline in which the two constitutive parts are the cultural structure and the context of significance. A discipline is a totality, which emerges from and integrates these two components which are simultaneously irreducible to one another, and nonseparable in the whole. We then utilise Heidegger's four ways of being, to show how change in a discipline can be incorporated in the framework. Finally, we reflect on how the framework could contribute towards the understanding of the discipline of information systems.

Aufzeichnungen aus der Ukraine: In einer Zeit, die uns sprachlos werden lässt, bringt Andrej Kurkow zu Papier, was ein Krieg anrichtet, was er verändert und umdeutet. Mit welchem Blick er uns neu auf die Dinge schauen lässt. Auf alles, was nicht mehr so sein kann, nie mehr so schmecken wird, sich nie mehr so anfühlen wird wie davor. Andrej Kurkow zeigt historische Kontinuitäten auf und macht den Kampf der Ukrainerinnen und Ukrainer um Selbstbestimmung begreifbar. Er schreibt Geschichten nieder, die keinen Platz in den Kurzmeldungen finden: die der Menschen.

AbstractDisasters and disaster risks are social phenomena that take place in a political space shaped by different political ideologies. Despite this connection, the field of disaster risk management has been developed without a deliberate incorporation of political theories. Using a narrative literature review methodology, this paper sought to elucidate the significance of political theory in shaping both the policy and practice of disaster risk management. The review reveals notable intersections between political theories, such as elitism and pluralism, and established disaster risk management paradigms, specifically objectivism and constructivism. Notably, elitism and objectivism tend to promote expertise, marginalize citizen participation, and emphasize centralized disaster management, whereas pluralism and constructivism advocate for diversity, tolerance, and competition, aligning with the concept of disaster risk management. The paper argues that ignoring political theories in disaster risk management can conceal a deeper understanding of the power relations between different stakeholders, as well as the historical, economic, social, and political characteristics of a society. It advocates for future studies to examine the contributions of political theories explicitly and critically to disaster risk policies and practices. This call highlights the need for a deeper understanding of how political theories impact the effectiveness and equity of disaster risk management.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyze the status quo of disaster risk reduction (DRR) policy and legislation in Cameroon.Design/methodology/approachUsing a qualitative method, this paper examines historical data from sectoral administrative reports, plans, declarations, commitments and speeches, texts and peer-reviewed journals on disaster and risk management in Cameroon for the period 1967-2017. Empirical data from ten selected government sectors were used to analyze the status quo, together with quantitative data collected by using four instruments (i.e. HFA Priority 1 & 4, USAID Toolkit, GOAL Resilience Score and the Checklist on Law and DRR).FindingsFindings show that Cameroon largely still practices disaster response through the Department of Civil Protection. Transparency and accountability are the sine qua non of the state, but the lack thereof causes improper implementation of DRR within development institutions. DRR is seen as anad hocactivity, with the result that there is not effective institutional capacity for implementation. The need to develop a new national DRR framework is evident.Originality/valueAnalyzing the status quo of DRR in Cameroon could assist with the review and reevaluation of a new DRR framework within the Cameroonian territory.

The statutory framework which allows for the United Nations (UN) to conduct peace operations with regional organisations is examined along with the significance and meaning of a hybrid arrangement or agreement. This is followed by an analysis on the effectiveness of such an arrangement through the workings of the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) which is accepted to be the first peacekeeping mission with a unique hybrid character. It is highlighted that the hybrid aspect of UNAMID did not contravene the statutory requirements of the UN but it did aim, albeit unsuccessfully, to stifle the international associated character of the operation. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the operation was hampered by shortcomings in its mandate as a result of its hybrid character. It is nevertheless concluded that the hybrid model was a viable approach under certain conditions, and as such, UNAMID might well have been the pioneering mission which could have changed the UN approach to peacekeeping.