Search Results

Tying up to a postmodernist notion of identity as fragmented, incongruent, and constructed in the process of narrating (Pavlenko, 2006, pp. 13ff.), this chapter shows how Finnish-German research participants evaluate cultural and linguistic practices of the national spaces of Germany and Finland to construct conflicting bilingual and bicultural identities in a narrative interview. With the help of the analytical framework of Positioning Theory that takes the interactional embedding of the recounted narratives into account, the analysis demonstrates that the constructed identities grow out of the interview talk and are multiple on different interactional levels. On a vertical level, tellers orient both to the local interactional requirements of the interview and to broader discourses of (Finnish-German) bilingualism and biculturalism in the same moment in time. On a horizontal level they make national space relevant in different moments in time and thereby construct partly incommensurate bilingual and bicultural identities.

The purpose of this chapter is to assess who are the actors leading the charge for and against affirmative action in the most recent U.S. Supreme Court cases on affirmative action in the 21^st century. We are interested in the primary “lobbyist” of the Court during cases dealing with higher education and affirmative action (Gratz/Grutter and Fisher I and II) who make use of amicus briefs to make their cases for and against the policy. Amicus briefs are often described as “friends of the court” because they provide unique information to the court as well as elucidate broader social and political implications of the case's potential decision. However, scholars also argue that such briefs act to lobby the court for a specific resolution. While we look at all variation in authorship (e.g., individuals, civic organizations; universities, etc.), we pay particular attention to advocacy groups who have joined the fight for and against affirmative action in the public arena. Concerning opponents of affirmative action, scholars have stated that the backlash in the U.S. over policies and initiatives associated with the Civil Rights Movement has been led by elite-backed advocacy organizations, including special interest groups and think tanks.

In this chapter the core thesis of the book is outlined. This proposes that healthcare can be fruitfully viewed as a cluster of negotiated and interrelated moral orders, a deeper understanding of which is required to explain the difficulties associated with implementing EHRs, especially at a national level. Moral orders can be seen as an integral aspect of the division of labour in healthcare and the reciprocal relationships that develop over time among healthcare providers, administrators, citizens, and the state. They embody core values and serve to legitimate and provide justification for the distribution of key rights and responsibilities that enable healthcare systems to function and develop. It is argued that it is the challenge to moral orders which is at the heart of the problems plaguing the implementations of shareable electronic records.