Suchergebnisse

Darstellung der Lebensbedingungen und des Tagesablaufs der ländlichen Bevölkerung anhand von Beobachtungen, Befragungen und Dokumenten aus dem Zeitraum 1975 bis 1983

'Développement de fonctionnaires' or 'développement paysan'. At the meeting with which the paper opens, peasants and SAED officials were unable to come to terms, because each group held different and incompatible views about what constituted 'development'. For the SAED delegation, there was only one kind of development, defined in terms of technological innovation. Modernization therefore imposed its own objective constraints; once the peasants had chosen progress, there could be no sound reason for them to reject the production techniques and styles of organisation which progress required. For the leaders of the peasant association, on the other hand, there were two kinds of development, two ways of bringing agricultural change to the area; the choice was not between innovation and stagnation, but between change evolved from within, and change imposed from without. They had organised on their own, and had shown themselves capable of adapting to new crops and new techniques: that was 'développement paysan'. The SAED takeover, they felt, could not be justified in objective terms; its purpose was to deprive them of the freedom to control their own productive activity and its fruits, and make them work for outside interests rather than for the good of their own community. That was 'développement de fonctionnaires'. The SAED officials often spoke in terms of nationalist interest, one and undivided; but the peasants saw no necessary fit between their interests and those of officialdom. The evidence available suggests that the peasants' view of the situation is nearer the truth.

This article examines bisexual men's experiences of coming out across three age cohorts, and documents generational differences in the reception from friends and family regarding this disclosure. Drawing on in-depth interviews with an ethnically diverse sample of 60 openly bisexual men from the United States, we find that the oldest cohort encountered the most stereotypical views and prejudiced behaviour, while those of the youngest cohort expressed predominantly positive coming out stories. We attribute the cohort differences in these experiences to a decrease in cultural homophobia, alongside changes in the social organisation of masculinities.

This article examines bisexual men's experiences of coming out across three age cohorts, and documents generational differences in the reception from friends and family regarding this disclosure. Drawing on in-depth interviews with an ethnically diverse sample of 60 openly bisexual men from the United States, we find that the oldest cohort of bisexual men encountered the most stereotypical views and prejudiced behaviour, while those of the youngest cohort expressed predominantly positive coming out stories. We attribute the cohort differences in these experiences to a decrease in cultural homophobia, alongside changes in the social organisation of masculinities.

In this article, we discuss the methodological implications of a qualitative research project that examined the experiences of bisexual men living in three metropolitan cities. A detailed research proposal was approved in advance by both the funder and our university ethics review board. Once in the field however, we found our methods inadequate for recruiting the sufficient number of participants. With only a week to collect data before leaving the city, it was necessary to substantially revise how we recruited participants. We took our research to the crowded streets, shouting for participants. In order to explore the benefits of changing methods in situ, we describe the genesis of the research project and its failings and the development of a new data collection plan. The significance of this article is in the argument that it is important to maintain flexibility when conducting research: that rigidly sticking to a predetermined methodological procedure approved by funding bodies and ethical review panels can hinder the quality of data collected, and stultify the innovation of methods.