Suchergebnisse

"Um den Seuchen des 21. Jahrhunderts wirksam zu begegnen, muss ihre globale Bekämpfung neu organisiert werden. Die Verantwortung dafür kann nur bei einer demokratisch legitimierten Institution liegen. Es führt kein Weg daran vorbei, die Gesundheitsbehörde der Vereinten Nationen wieder zu einer schlagkräftigen Leitorganisation zu machen." (Autorenreferat)

When researching migration regimes at the micro level, qualitative methods are usually applied to analyze individual experiences of immigrants with different regime actors. In doing so, researchers face the challenge of drawing conclusions from these individual experiences about structures at the macro level which are implemented through various actors and organizations at the meso level. This abstraction is particularly challenging when the legal and institutional context is complex and research participants have little knowledge of the respective state structures and responsibilities (as is often the case with refugees shortly after their arrival in the host country). Based on the experiences from a case study on local and regional structures for the integration of refugees, in this article I analyze the potential of participatory research methods such as social mapping to meet these challenges in regime research. Social mapping is a method that combines the qualities of narrative interviews with a visualization to capture the experiences of research participants with structures and actors in their local environment.

Japanese urban planning (toshi keikaku) historically took place as a "top-down process" from administration to citizens. Because of the influence of Western countries, however, and the strengthening of democracy, since the 1960s the Japanese understanding of urban planning has changed to become a "bottom-up process" called machizukuri. Field investigations (scientific observation, questionnaires and interviews) in two wards of Tokyo, Suginami and Setagaya, analyse and categorize the great variety of citizens' participation projects in Japan. In a comparison between the two planning cultures, the main difference can be seen in the fact that participation in Germany is still legally very restricted and aims at results, whereas most Japanese machizukuri projects take place on a self-generated basis, and the learning process and conviviality are often just as if not more important than results. To realize an effective cooperation between all actors in urban planning, in both Germany and Japan, further changes and improvements in participation possibilities are necessary. The administration has to share competence, and citizens have to take more responsibility instead of relying on their traditional comfortable role as consumers. The final chapter makes some proposals, regarding the way in which each country can and should learn from the positive experiences of the other.