The Reification of Integration

The problem with integration is a twofold one, a socio-theoretical and a methodological one. Socio-theoretically, the concept of integration is forced upon a heterogeneous and disintegrated society. Methodologically, by deploying the concept of integration within social sciences reifying ramifications are established. This article proposes a theoretical sketch for an alternative route for researching migration and integration, which escapes both shortcomings by modifying its theoretical presumptions on the one hand and extracting its reifying connotations on the other hand. The alternative research model, the life situation model (LSM), proposes a mixed methods approach, seeking generality of application and symmetry of approach

Certainties unearthed: lessons on migration?

In "The Dawn of Everything," David Graeber and David Wengrow (2021) unearth certainties held regarding the social evolution of humankind, which supposedly began with the Neolithic revolution and – following a linear trajectory – resulted in modern state-building. The book is not about migration at all by its making, and yet mobility plays a vital part in the authors’ account. It imparts two vital lessons to migration research. The first concerns the role and function of migration as such. The second concerns the role of schismogenesis. Both conceptualizations are not new to migration studies, but they emphasize essential insights. By applying both concepts, migration as freedom and schismogenesis, to my own research project, I will attempt to dismantle the notion of the migrant subject

Für einen anti-integratorischen Imperativ

Integration ist ein Allgemeinplatz geworden. Er funktioniert als Erwartungshaltung gegenüber Migrant*innen. Begriffsanalytisch betrachtet impliziert Integration Annahmen, die in ihrer Anwendung auf die heutige Gesellschaft zu Paradoxien führen. Dies sind zum einen die Annahme einer homogenen Zielentität von Integration und zum anderen die Annahme der impliziten Asymmetrie. Versuche, diese Annahmen zu umgehen, führen zu Theoriekonstrukten, die die Bedeutung und das Verständnis von und über Integration in Zweifel ziehen. Dabei scheint es bereits dem Begriff "Integration" inhärent zu sein, von einer zugrundliegenden Dichotomie auszugehen. Diese Dichotomie besteht zwischen einer migrantischen und nicht integrierten bzw. sich zu integrierenden Gruppe und einer non-migrantischen bzw. integrierten Gruppe. Der integratorische Sprachgebrauch transportiert dabei normative Inhalte, da die integrierte Gesellschaft als die Norm betrachtet wird, von der andere abfallen, und dient in der Praxis der "natio-ethno-kulturellen" Grenzziehung. Integration hilft uns dabei, zwischen einem "Wir" und den "Anderen" zu unterscheiden. Als ethische Konsequenz, so wird argumentiert, sollte auf die Verwendung von Integration als einem wissenschaftlich-analytischen Begriff verzichtet werden. Stattdessen ist Integration als ein identitätspolitisch aufgeladener Kampfbegriff zu verstehen, dessen Überwindung als normativ geboten erachtet wird.Integration has become a commonplace which serves us to manage expectations towards migrants. Analysing the construct of integration reveals two presumptions, the presumption of a homogenous entity of integration and the presumption of an implicit asymmetry. Applied to modern society both presumptions lead to paradoxes. Attempts to circumvent one or both of these presumptions seem to question the very concept of integration. It appears like the concept "integration" itself inherently transports a dichotomy, which is the differentiation between the migrant or the integrating person and the non-migrant or the integrated one. The semantics of integration carries normative assumptions and practically perpetuates a natio-ethno-cultural border regime. Integration is meant to distinguish the "We" from "the Other". As an ethical consequence, I shall argue, integration needs to be abandoned as a scientific analytical category. Integration needs to be understood as an (identity) politically laden concept and it is an ethical imperative to overcome this very concept

What does it take to consent to islet cell xenotransplantation?

BACKGROUND The transplantation of porcine islet cells provides a new potential therapy to treat patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Compared to other biomedical technologies, xenotransplantation stands out in terms of its involvement of animals as graft sources, as well as the possible transmission of infectious diseases. As these aspects are especially relevant for potential xenotransplantation recipients, it is important to assess their opinion regarding this technology, in particular in terms of the requirements that should be met in the informed consent process for xenotransplantation. METHODS We conducted qualitative interviews with seven T1DM patients to assess their information needs prior to xenotransplantation. Before the interview, the participants received a model informed consent form for a clinical trial with porcine islet cells transplantation. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS In the interviews, we identified several requirements that are crucial for patients with T1DM in order to consider xenotransplantation as a potential treatment option: therapy-related requirements, professional care and supervision, successful behaviour and attitude management, improving quality of life, and managing control/self-determination challenges. Regarding the informed consent form, several of the participants' questions remained open and should be addressed in more detail. The interviewees stressed the importance of personal consultations. CONCLUSIONS To become a sustainable therapeutic option, patients especially expected an improved diabetes control and a reduction of diabetes-related burdens. Health-related aspects prove to be pivotal for diabetic patients when considering porcine islet cell transplantation. The use of pigs as source for organ retrievals was not considered as problematic

Microscale spatial distribution and soil organic matter persistence in top and subsoil

The spatial distribution of organic substrates and microscale soil heterogeneity significantly influence organic matter (OM) persistence as constraints on OM accessibility to microorganisms. However, it is unclear how changes in OM spatial heterogeneity driven by factors such as soil depth affect the relative importance of substrate spatial distribution on OM persistence. This work evaluated the decomposition and persistence of 13C and 15N labeled water-extractable OM inputs over 50 days as either hotspot (i.e., pelleted in 1 – 2 mm-size pieces) or distributed (i.e., added as OM < 0.07 µm suspended in water) forms in topsoil (0-0.2 m) and subsoil (0.8-0.9 m) samples of an Andisol. We observed greater persistence of added C in the subsoil with distributed OM inputs relative to hotspot OM, indicated by a 17% reduction in cumulative mineralization of the added C and a 10% higher conversion to mineral-associated OM. A lower substrate availability potentially reduced mineralization due to OM dispersion throughout the soil. NanoSIMS (nanoscale secondary ion mass spectrometry) analysis identified organo-mineral associations on cross-sectioned aggregate interiors in the subsoil. On the other hand, in the topsoil, we did not observe significant differences in the persistence of OM, suggesting that the large amounts of particulate OM already present in the soil outweighed the influence of added OM spatial distribution. Here, we demonstrated under laboratory conditions that the spatial distribution of fresh OM input alone significantly affected the decomposition and persistence of OM inputs in the subsoil. On the other hand, spatial distribution seems to play a lower role in topsoils rich in particulate OM. The divergence in the influence of OM spatial distribution between the top and subsoil is likely driven by differences in soil mineralogy and OM composition.Microscale spatial distribution and soil organic matter persistence in top and subsoilpublishedVersio

Sustainable and resource efficient intensivation of crop production – Perspectives of agro-ecosystem researchPolicy paper of the DFG Senate Commission on Agroecosystem Research

Mit dem vorliegenden Grundsatzpapier zeigt die Senatskommission für Agrarökosystemforschung Perspektiven für die Grundlagenforschung zur nachhaltigen Erhöhung der Kulturpflanzenproduktion auf.Agrarsysteme stehen im Spannungsfeld zwischen steigendem Bedarf an landwirtschaftlichen Produkten, der Verknappung der Ressourcen, dem Verlust der Biodiversität und dem Klimawandel. Die für das Jahr 2050 prognostizierte notwendige Ertragssteigerung zur Sicherstellung des Bedarfs an Nahrungsmitteln kann, ohne die Belastbarkeitsgrenzen ökologischer Systeme zu überschreiten, nur durch wissenschaftlichen Fortschritt bewältigt werden (Abb. 1), der eine nachhaltige und ressourcen­effiziente Steigerung der Agrarproduktion ermöglicht (FAO, 2011; Dobermann und Nelson, 2013). Die nachhaltige Intensivierung stellt die Agrarwissenschaften vor neue Aufgaben, die weit über ihre klassischen Grenzen hinausgehen.Die Senatskommission plädiert daher für eine Erweiterung der agrarwissenschaftlichen Perspektive. Die meist auf einzelne Feldfrüchte bezogene Bewertung der Rela­tion zwischen Input und Ertrag muss ergänzt werden um die Optionen, die sich aus der räumlichen und zeitlichen Diversifikation der Produktionssysteme unter Einbeziehung der standörtlichen Eigenschaften, des Landschaftskontextes sowie des Klimawandels ergeben. Um Ökosystemleistungen einzubeziehen, müssen Produktionsstrategien entwickelt werden, die sich auf ganze Landschaften und Regionen richten und auch entsprechende sozio­öko­no­mische und agrarpolitische Rahmenbedingungen berücksichtigen.Vor diesem Hintergrund schlägt die Senatskommission drei interdisziplinäre Forschungsschwerpunkte zur ressourceneffizienten Erhöhung der Flächenproduktivität vor:(1) Ausnutzung des Potentials von Kulturpflanzen zur umweltschonenden Ertragssteigerung im Kontext öko­systemarer Bedingungen.(2) Nachhaltige Steigerung der Pflanzenproduktion im Landschaftskontext.(3) Ökonomische, gesellschaftliche und politische Dimensionen der Ertragssteigerung von Kulturpflanzen. DOI: 10.5073/JfK.2014.07.01, https://doi.org/10.5073/JfK.2014.07.01With its policy paper the Senate Commission on Agro-ecosystem Research of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) summarizes potential benefits of basic research for the sustainable intensification of crop production. Agro-ecosystems critically contribute to fulfilling the need for increasing food and fiber production, diminishing resource depletion as well as counteracting biodiversity loss and climate change. Yield demands that are needed to ensure the food supply predicted for the year 2050 can only be achieved by scientific progress that allows the intensive yet environmentally friendly production of plant biomass (Figure 1), (FAO, 2011; Dobermann und Nelson, 2013; Ray et al., 2013). Sustainable intensification requires a scientific realignment that allows for broadening the scope of agricultural research. The productivity of farming systems should be evaluated with regard to their efficiency (input-output relation). In addition, the spatial and temporal variability of these systems must be considered by addressing local conditions, the landscape context and climate change. With respect to ecosystem services, new production strategies must be developed that take all aspects of landscape and regional complexity as well as socio-economic conditions and agricultural policy into account.Against this background, the Senate Commission on Agro-ecosystem Research proposes three priority areas of interdisciplinary research on resource efficient intensification of crop production:(1) Exploiting the biological potential of the individual crop plants for an environmentally friendly intensification in an ecosystem approach(2) Exploring sustainable intensification of crop production within a landscape context(3) Taking full account of the economic, social and political dimensions of sustainable intensification of crop production DOI: 10.5073/JfK.2014.07.01, https://doi.org/10.5073/JfK.2014.07.0

Effects of GnRH or PGF2α in week 5 postpartum on the incidence of cystic ovarian follicles and persistent corpora lutea and on fertility parameters in dairy cows

Resumption of ovulatory activity and the timely lysis of the first CL postpartum (pp) are important determinants for the reproductive performance of dairy cows. Cystic ovarian follicles (COFs) and persistent CLs preclude normal ovarian cyclicity and increase the calving interval. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of GnRH on the incidence of COFs and the effect of PGF2α on the incidence of a prolonged luteal phase (PLP) and on fertility parameters in dairy cows. A total of 476 cows were examined ultrasonographically for the presence of a dominant follicle (12–25 mm, without CL >10 mm; n = 237) or a functional CL (≥20 mm; n = 239) between 28 and 35 days pp and were allocated to one of four groups. Cows with a dominant follicle received 10-μg GnRH (buserelin; group F-T; n = 118) or saline (group F-C; n = 119), and cows with a functional CL received 0.5 mg of a PGF2α analogue (cloprostenol; group CL-T; n = 119) or saline (group CL-C; n = 120) on the day of initial examination, defined as Day 0. Cows were reexamined 7 and 21 days (F-T and F-C) and 3 and 24 days (CL-T and CL-C) later, and COFs were treated immediately after diagnosis in all cows. On the basis of the ovarian findings on Days 21 and 24, cows were treated according to a protocol aimed at timely breeding. The incidence of COFs by Days 7 (F-T vs. F-C; 7.6% vs. 16.8%) and 21 (11.0% vs. 21.8%) decreased (P ≤ 0.03) with GnRH; however, this did not lead to a substantial improvement of calving-to-conception interval (means ± standard error of the mean; 107.91 ± 5.70 vs. 117.94 ± 6.63 days), first-service conception rate (42.3% vs. 41.3%), and number of services per conception (2.06 ± 0.12 vs. 2.31 ± 0.15). Treatment with PGF2α decreased (P < 0.0001) the incidence of PLP by Day 24 (CL-T vs. CL-C; 1.7% vs. 17.5%), decreased calving-to-conception interval(91.28 ± 4.77 vs. 101.75 ± 5.03 days), increased first-service conception rate (63.3% vs. 38.7%), and reduced the number of services per conception (1.65 ± 0.10 vs. 2.08 ± 0.12; each P ≤ 0.01). The results indicate that strategic treatment with GnRH or PGF2α in week 5 pp to induce early ovulation and luteolysis reduces the incidence of COFs and PLP, respectively. Initial treatment with PGF2α also enhanced reproductive performance when used in conjunction with a standardized treatment protocol for all cows in week 8 pp (aimed at timely breeding). In contrast, GnRH did not improve fertility parameters of cystic cows in herds where all cows with COFs were treated as expeditiously as possible