What We Talk about When We Talk about Family? Concept in Context

The aim of the paper is to point at the sources of ideologization of concept of family through presenting its definition and use in modern social, mainly sociological, thought in XIX and XX century. The analysis has been done through contextualization - interpretation of family concept definition within frameworks of various sociological theories that are embedded within socio-historical contexts of their emergence. The first part of the paper deals with main obstacles for conceptualization and exploration of family life. Analysis of sociological theories showed that both definition of family and the attitude towards modern family are in function of central theoretical proposition of the approach, whether it is set as social system integration or emancipation of an individual. Sociological studies are also burdened with normativism, since scholars view modern family as an ideological construct of, success story", both from the standpoint of its apology or criticism, therefore neglecting reality of family life in its variety. In the concluding part, I raise the questions of possibility and a mode of comprehending and exploring particularly contemporary family without a burden of its ideologization

Rethinking Context Models

Since the first context-aware applications were designed, context modelling has played a central role. During the last decade many different approaches were proposed to model context, ranging from ad-hoc models to extensions to relational databases or ontologies. In this paper we propose to take a step back and analyse those approaches using the seminal views presented by Paul Dourish in his work (What we talk about when we talk about context). Based on that analysis we propose a set of guidelines that any context model should follow.Laboratorio de Investigación y Formación en Informática Avanzad

Making Honors Success Scripts Available to Students from Diverse Backgrounds

In her lead forum essay, Naomi Yavneh Klos thoughtfully encourages us to reexamine our admissions practices in honors. She argues, We need a more nuanced reevaluation of standards that recognizes the role of systemic bias in traditional metrics of academic excellence and that holistically evaluates each student’s strengths and challenges in the context of individual and cultural experience. Such practices strengthen honors by identifying a diverse spectrum of students who both benefit from and enrich our honors community. (8) I would like to take that call for reevaluation one step further by asking members of the honors community to interrogate the way we narratively frame honors experiences so that these constructs are as inclusive as possible. Employing admissions practices that do not disadvantage students from underrepresented backgrounds is crucial, but also essential is that we do not unintentionally turn away such students even before they might consider applying to honors. The way we discuss honors and the stories we tell about it can signal to underrepresented students that they do not belong. One way to think about this issue is to pose a question, with apologies to Raymond Carver: What do we talk about when we talk about honors? Ultimately, I want to think about how success narratives are structured in honors education; ask how open or available these narratives are to students from underrepresented backgrounds; and make sure we are not simply reinforcing privilege when our narratives make promises to students about what it means to join the honors community

Connecting 'talent' meanings and multi-level context: a discursive approach

Through an in-depth, multilevel case study of a professional services firm, this paper illuminates what stakeholders mean when they use the term ‘talent’. The paper underlines how various contextual factors including, workforce composition, ownership structures and individual perceptions influence talent meanings within an organisation. Our analysis of talent phenomena at a multiplicity of levels illustrates that it is not only about the words, phrases, and terms employed when talking about talent that requires examination. There is a need to deliberate on the meanings that underpin the talk because while stakeholders may talk the same way they may mean different things. The paper makes a key theoretical contribution through specific recognition of the importance of thoughtful reflection of how stakeholders discursively construct meanings because ‘talent’ is a concept, which requires translation via talk to become meaningful within the material world and these meanings are influenced by context. Thus, we cannot infer, that talent meanings radiate within organisations, nor across organisational boundaries, industries or countries because discourses arise and materialise within specific contexts and we must acknowledge that talent discourses can not be removed from the context in which they operate

Fight, flight, freeze, (for)give: what do we hear when we listen to child psychotherapists talk about parents and parent work in the context of their daily practice

This thesis presents qualitative research exploring the place of parents and parent work in child psychotherapy through the way in which child psychotherapists in England talk about it. The idea was formed by the researcher’s own experience as a child psychotherapist trainee in a CAMHS setting, where she noticed marked differences in how professionals practiced parent work. Further exploration revealed an area that suffers from a lack of resources and support in both theoretical literature and training schools. To explore the gaps in literature and in practice, an open-ended interview of four questions was designed. The first and broadest question was: ‘What is the place of parents in Child Psychotherapy? How do you make sense of Parent work in your daily practice?’ Eleven senior child psychotherapists in private practice in London (in parallel to NHS posts in the past or present) agreed to be interviewed. All interviews were recorded, transcribed and kept confidentially in a non-identifiable way, but only seven were chosen for full analysis. Narrative Analysis, which helps reveal personal stories based on an individual’s experience, was the methodology used to analyse participants’ accounts. Gee’s (1991) linguistic approach specifically was used, which focuses on audible characteristics of speech, like emphasised and prolonged words, breaks, stammering. Analysis of the material revealed three main narrative themes: ‘Threat’- a serious, careful approach with a sense of heavy responsibility and burden; ‘A wobbly space’- a therapeutic space where parents seem to be coming in and out of focus and the attitude towards them alternates between distant and close; ‘Identity in action’- an active, assertive professional identity that pushes towards development and change. The thesis will discuss possible underlying reasons for these narratives, including issues to do with ‘power’, boundaries within the profession, and therapists’ passion to make a difference in their patients’ lives