Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Alternativ können Sie versuchen, selbst über Ihren lokalen Bibliothekskatalog auf das gewünschte Dokument zuzugreifen.
Bei Zugriffsproblemen kontaktieren Sie uns gern.
54448 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Evaluation: the international journal of theory, research and practice, Band 7, Heft 2, S. 164-180
ISSN: 1461-7153
The text you are about to read is a dialogical text on dialogue and evaluation. It is a conversation between a group of scholars who have studied and published on the concept of dialogue and the value of dialogue for the practice of evaluation. The text is based on the field notes of a panel meeting held during a gathering of the European Evaluation Society to discuss this topic. It also contains an analysis of essays written in preparation for the panel in answer to the following carefully selected questions. What is your concept of dialogue? Why do you think dialogue is important for evaluation, especially for programme evaluation in the public sector and civil society? During an evaluation, what are the essential characteristics of a meaningful dialogue? Who participates? What do they talk about? What is the evaluator's role? What prior value commitments or facilitating conditions are necessary? What are desired outcomes? What are the most important cautions we should take when conducting a more dialogical evaluation and finally, how 'good' are the dialogues we conduct, and what in fact constitutes 'good' dialogue?
The concept of 'dialogue' can have radically different meanings to different people (Cf Müller 1991; Doeser 1983; Handgraaf 1983; Vroom 1983; Tracy 1981, 1987, 1989). But it can also serve as an umbrella-description for major questions. In this article the ambiguity of 'dialogue' is traced with reference to four well-known positions on dialogue: Gadamer (Trusting dialogue in goodwill …), Derrida (Suspicious dialogue in counter-position …), Rorty (Dialogue as therapy that changes our vocabulary …), and Haberman (Non-coercive dialogue according to rational procedures …). Some tentative conclusions on different approaches to dialogue are drawn and reflections on the relevance for scholars and for South African (theological; religious; political; scholarly; ethical, etc) discourse are presented.
BASE
In: Naučno-analitičeskij vestnik Instituta Evropy RAN, Band 20, Heft 2, S. 7-15
ISSN: 2618-7914
The article deals with the problems of political and diplomatic relations between Russia and the European Union. The key event was the meeting of Josep Borrel as the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow in February 2021. The Russian side considered it as an opportunity to outline the prospect of resuming the political dialogue interrupted by the European Union in 2014, notably in the context of the reviewing a strategy on Russia initiated by the EU. The author analyzes the differences in the approaches of European countries and institutions in the context of the ongoing aggravation of Russia – EU relations. The main result of the meeting was not its «ineffectiveness», but, on the contrary, its obvious counterproductive effect. The EU has even more consolidated its policy of deterring Russia and increasing sanctions pressure, which actually closes the prospect for systemic dialogue. In this context, the political and diplomatic conflict in connection with the mass expulsion of Russian diplomats by the Czech Republic (the «Czech case») and the narrowing of opportunities to compensate for the EU-Russia dialogue shortcomings by bilateral tracks are also considered. In conclusion, some finding are presented regarding the perspective Russian reaction.
In: Dialogue studies Volume 18
The volume considers politics as cooperative group action and takes the position that forms of government can be posited on a continuum with endpoints where governance is shared, and where hegemony dictates, ranging from politics as interaction to politics as imposition. Similarly, dialogue and dialogic action can be superimposed on the same continuum lying between truly collaborative where co-participants exchange ideas in a cooperative manner and dominated by an absolute position where dialogue proceeds along prescribed paths. The chapters address the continuum between these endpoints and present illuminating and persuasive analyses of dialogue in politics, covering motions of support, the relationship between politics and the press, interviews, debates, discussion forums and multimodal media analyses across different discourse domains and different cultural contexts from Africa to the Middle East, and from the United States to Europe.
In: Feminist review, Band 64, Heft 1, S. 113-138
ISSN: 1466-4380
In: Feminist review, Band 63, Heft 1, S. 91-107
ISSN: 1466-4380
In: International studies quarterly: the journal of the International Studies Association, Band 42, Heft 1, S. 191-191
ISSN: 1468-2478