Suchergebnisse

"Prison has always been an attractive object for study in the field of sociology. Few other areas of modern society demonstrate social reality's fundamental ideas so clearly and obviously than prison. Social deviance and stigma, ostracism and integration, control and discipline, power and inequality are all examples of key sociological concepts that are crystalized in daily life in a prison environment.

Fengslende sosiologi. Makt, straff og identitet i Trondheims fengsler (Captivating Sociology. Power, Punishment and Identity in Trondheim's Prisons) presents twelve scholarly, peer-reviewed chapters that explore various aspects of prison as a social phenomenon, both as a part of and an expression of society.

The majority of the contributions build on empirical studies at maximum and minimum-security prisons in Trondheim, but the analyses have a broader relevance – both empirically and theoretically – for our understanding of power, punishment and identity in Norwegian penal institutions. Most of the contributors are associated with the Department of Sociology and Political Science at NTNU, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and the department's project 'Fengslende sosiologi' ('Captivating Sociology'). Several of the texts are by former master's students in sociology and present further analyses based on their master's projects.

This anthology will be of interest to scholars and practitioners in the field as well as students and others interested in prison as a social institution and penal institutions in general." - "I sosiologien har fengselet alltid vært et attraktivt studieobjekt. Her demonstreres den sosiale virkelighetens grunnleggende begreper så klart og tydelig som få andre steder i det moderne samfunnet. Sosiale avvik og stigma, utstøting og integrering, kontroll og disiplin, makt og ulikhet er alle eksempler på sosiologiske nøkkelbegreper som krystalliseres i fengselets hverdagsliv.

I antologien Fengslende sosiologi. Makt, straff og identitet i Trondheims fengsler presenteres i alt tolv vitenskapelige, fagfellevurderte kapitler som diskuterer ulike sider ved fengselet som sosialt fenomen, både som en del av og som et uttrykk for samfunnet

De fleste bidragene bygger på empiriske studier ved høy- og lavsikkerhetsfengslene i Trondheim, men analysene har bredere relevans – både empirisk og teoretisk – for forståelsen av makt, straff og identitet i de norske strafferettsinstitusjonene. De fleste forfatterne er tilknyttet Institutt for sosiologi og statsvitenskap ved Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet (NTNU) og instituttets prosjekt «Fengslende sosiologi». Flere av tekstene er skrevet av tidligere masterstudenter i sosiologi og presenterer bearbeidede analyser fra deres masterprosjekter.

Målgruppen for antologien er forskere, utøvere i praksisfeltet, studenter og andre med interesse for fengselet som sosial institusjon og strafferettsinstitusjonene mer allment."

The article compares the Norwegian & the German political debate on changes to the respective countries' citizenship laws. The Norwegian law will come into force in September 2006, while the German law was introduced in 2000. In citizenship laws we can find a contrast between an ethnic & cultural understanding of political community & a rights-based understanding. This contrast was hardly touched upon in the Norwegian debate. Among the Norwegian political parties there was broad agreement to carry on with the principle of ethnic decent. Moreover, all parties, with an exception of the Socialist Left Party (SV), wanted to introduce more restrictions on the established Norwegian practice to accept dual citizenship. The German debate dealt with the contrasting principles, & the conflict followed the left/right cleavages. The main difference found between the two countries refers to the left parties. Both with regard to the principle of ethnic decent/territorial principle & the acceptance of dual citizenship, the Social Democrats in Norway & Germany presented opposite standpoints. References. Adapted from the source document.

The Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) can be seen as the most central agent in the Norwegian foreign policy scene and is known for its many good seminars and talented researchers. A researcher from the Institute for Labour and Social Research (Fafo) congratulates NUPI for its achievements and hopes for a continuing good relationship between the institutes. L. Pitkaniemi

Rapid climate change in the Arctic triggers the remobilization of chemical pollution, increasing its exposure and potential impacts in the region. While scientific knowledge on multiple stressors, including the interlinkages between climate change and hazardous chemicals, is increasing, it has proven challenging to translate this knowledge into policy. This study analyzes the process of translating Arctic scientific knowledge on multiple stressors into global policy by focusing on the development of a guidance document under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Through document analysis and key informant interviews, we focus particularly on the role of the Arctic Council working group AMAP in synthesizing, translating and communicating science on multiple stressors to policy makers. We draw on the theoretical framework of formalization (how and by whom knowledge is summarized for policy) and separation (the relative distance between science and policy) to analyze the science-to-policy interface. Our analysis of the phases leading up to the guidance document show that AMAP has dynamically moved between different degrees of separation and formalization. Orchestrating the interplay between scientists and policy makers, the working group has put multiple stressors on the political agenda internationally. AMAP has thereby contributed to turn Arctic science into global policy through the guidance document. We conclude by illustrating several constraints in terms of the implementation of actual policy, which we argue is due to an increasing degree of formalization in the last phase and a general unreadiness of contemporary governance systems to address multiple stressors.