Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This article takes as its focus the strategies by which ethical stances are established and legitimized in fan studies writing. It argues that, as a matter of ethics, such stances should always be placed under interrogation. This can be achieved by disrupting the entities that are often invoked in claims about what constitutes ethical practice in research – ones that may otherwise quickly become naturalized points of reference. Using as an exemplar Busse and Hellekson's articulation of the 'fans first' principle, the article considers how ethical positions become sedimented and normalized within academic fields of practice. In doing so, the article develops some counter-principles for an ethical destabilization and (where necessary) dismantling of received ethical subjectivities in fan studies research.

It is hyped that the evaluation & use of public opinion res findings are determined not so much by the excellence of the data collected as by the nature of the res relationship between client & researcher. Some of the problems & consequences which arise in the relationship between the PO researcher & his client are treated. 6 propositions about the client-researcher relationship which influence res & its subsequent utilization are cited: (1) there is often a lack of clarity on the part of both client & researcher as to their mutual roles, obligations & responsibilities, (2) the client & the res agency may bring diff time horizons to the study of a problem, (3) breakdowns in communication within the client org, as well as faulty communication between the client & his agency, contribute to disappointing res studies, (4) the client-researcher relationship represents an ever-changing distribution of power, & this shifting of power affects the way res problems are structured & the extent to which they are accepted & utilized by the client, (5) there is considerable evidence that clients & researchers employ diff criteria in evaluating a completed study, & seldom communicate these judgments to one another, & (6) both researchers & clients are disturbed by charges that the field of PO res is not a true profession, that it lacks standards for membership & performance & that its work must therefore be viewed with a decent amount of reservation & question. AA.

The relationship between researchers & their objects of study has varied & continues to vary across time & disciplinary traditions. A key element in such variations is the degree of reflexivity involved in the process of knowledge production. To what extent are researchers aware of how they themselves produce knowledge? This question is discussed in the context of political science. It is suggested that the various forms the study of culture has taken in political science can serve as an indicator of different levels of reflexivity or modes of engagement. Three influential conceptualizations of "culture" in political science are presented as examples: political culture theory, civilizational theory, & constructivism. Toward the end, the ease is made for a cosmopolitan engagement with culture & examples from political science of this type of engagement are introduced. References. Adapted from the source document.

The author reflects on her experiences as a researcher focusing on the narratives of women in a Liberian refugee camp in Ghana.

The analysis of subject-subject relations, the identification and characterization of which this article is devoted to, is of great importance for the further development of theoretical and methodological aspects of book culture, its complete and in-depth study in various historical periods, identification of trends, scale, drivers and conditions for its development, disclosure and strengthening of its communicative nature. The article aims to formulate the main theoretical aspects of the manifestations of subjectivity and subject-subject relations in book culture with an emphasis on the historical and regional context. There is presented book culture as an extensive system of interacting subjects of book publishing, book distribution and reading, which have books as the main object. In the context of book culture, the article, for the first time, gives working definitions of the terms "subject" and "subject-subject relations". The author names the universal properties of subjects, which are activity, dedication, initiative, responsibility, ability and readiness to transform the world and oneself. There are specified the subjects, the most significant and widespread subject-subject relations that are generated in book culture and form its fundamental ties, including those that were characteristic of the Russian Empire. The article presents the most active subjects of the book culture of Siberia and the Far East in the pre-revolutionary period, both individual and collective. The author indicates the dependence of tasks, pace, directions, scale, results of the development of book culture on its subjects.

Empirical observation in conflict situations is limited by numerous constraints. The most obvious are accessibility and security. This article, however, wants to challenge the dominant view that research in regions that are prone to violence and conflict is impossible because of the high security risks and therefore should be limited to post-conflict situations or to situations where hostilities have ceased. It argues that the dynamic character of patterns of violence can also offer opportunities to researchers. Successful research in conflict regions is not conditioned by the level of insecurity as such, but by researchers' abilities to adapt to the conflict environment, their contacts with local actors or partners, their understanding of the conflict and on the flexibility in the used methodological tools. Based on experiences in South Kivu and Ituri, the article also claims that research is influenced by the relationship between the researcher and the research subject and by the autonomy of the researcher. Although both issues risk putting considerable constraints on social research, they become all the more relevant when working in conflict situations. Adapted from the source document.

This study explores how researchers engage with research subjects. Specifically, it examines the struggle to account for the lived experience of subjects under study while producing knowledge about and for them. Drawing on psychoanalytic, specifically Lacanian, theorizing, the study suggests that such struggles are even more complex when real subjects are absent and impossible to account for. It advances the idea that by articulating the research subject through four different discourses, researchers may take different positions toward this absence. In the first, researchers produce research subjects and put them to work. In the second, subjects are subsumed through systematic knowledge production. In the third, the subject serves the production of knowledge as a function of the split subject's enjoyment. In the fourth discourse the researcher becomes the object of desire so as to empower subjects in their becoming. It is suggested that each discourse allows researchers to take a different stance toward their research subjects. While discourses one and two are quite commonly adopted, discourses three and four may be alternatives for reflection that facilitate the creative expression of subjectivity, ethical choice and transformational, frame-breaking textual practices. Implications of this perspective for organizational research are discussed.

Trends in consumers' willingness to be surveyed as well as attitudes toward being interviewed & toward the survey research industry in general were examined via telephone interviews with national probability samples of US households as part of the biennial Industry Image Studies conducted in 1978, 1980, 1982, & 1984 (N = approximately 500 Rs each year). The results raise some important questions in terms of multiple participation & its effect on the validity of survey data. They also challenge researchers to examine their own standards & practices in order to enhance the relationship between researchers & the participants. 4 Tables, 5 Figures, 1 Reference. Modified HA