0.ikusintroduction (p)

0.ikusintroduction (p) -...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Introduction
to
the
Special
Issue
on
Cultural
 Psychology
and
Qualitative
Social
Research
in
Vienna

 KATHARINA
HAMETNER

 STEFAN
HAMPL
 AMREI
C.
JOERCHEL
 MARKUS
WRBOUSCHEK
 University
of
Vienna
&
 Sigmund
Freud
University
of
Vienna
 
 
 
 FOUNDATION
AND
DEVELOPMENT
OF
THE
INSTITUTE
OF
CULTURAL
 PSYCHOLOGY
AND
QUALITATIVE
SOCIAL
RESEARCH
(ikus)

 
 “One
must
have
chaos
within
oneself,
to
give
birth
to
a
dancing
star.”
 (Nietzsche,
1885/2009,
p.15)
 
 When
 we
 founded
 ikus—The
 Institute
 of
 Cultural
 Psychology
 and
 Qualitative
 Social
 Research—two
 years
 ago,
 we
 started
 out
 with
 nothing;
 without
 a
 grand
 concept
 or
 business
plan,
without
an
office,
without
a
single
cent.
Perhaps
we
can
look
back
in
a
few
 years
 and
 reconstruct
 the
 genuine
 logic
of
 the
dynamics
we
have
 been
 experiencing
at
 our
 young
 Viennese
 institute
 so
 far.
 Today
 this
 task
 is
 challenging
 and
 seems
 almost
 awkward
 in
 the
midst
of
 our
 performance.
 How
can
one
 describe
 a
process
that
 one
 is
 personally
 part
 of,
 especially
 as
 a
 psychologist
 and/or
 professionally
 trained
 social
 researcher?
 It
 is
 hard
 not
 to
 fall
 into
 the
 arcane
 traps
 of
 self‐assurance
 that
 generally
 accompany
 young,
 ambitious
 projects.
 With
 an
 intelligible
 allegory
 Thomas
 Slunecko
 advises
 against
 the
 allurements
 of
 the
 situation.
 According
 to
 him
 this
 would
 be
 like
 drawing
 “the
 bull’s
 eye
 around
 the
 bullet
 hole
 in
 retrospect
 and
 to
 pretend
 that
 everything
 had
 been
 consciously
 planned
 and
 intended
 to
 create
 the
 eventual
 result”
 (Slunecko,
2008,
p.13).
 
 Therefore,
instead
of
 suggesting
a
 slick
 and
homogenous
success
 story
of
our
institute,
 we
would
like
to
point
the
attention
to
the
intricate
antecedents
of
its
foundation.
From
 2003‐2006
 the
 joint
 seminars
 of
 our
 later
 to
 become
 scientific
 directors
 Thomas
 Slunecko
 and
 Aglaja
 Przyborski
belonged
to
 the
 unofficial,
but
exceptional
 gems
at
the
 University
 of
 Vienna.
 These
 seminars
 soon
 turned
 into
 a
 receptacle
 of
 students
 from
 diverse
disciplines
 with
 scientific
 curiosity
 in
 cultural
psychology,
media
theory,
 iconic
 and
visual
research,
as
well
as
higher
qualitative
research
methods.
The
conveyed
ideas
 were
so
noticeably
different
from
anything
else
we
were
exposed
to
before,
that
some
of
 us
initiated
a
dedicated
reading
group,
whose
members
met
in
their
spare
time
in
order
 to
 read
 and
 discuss
 related
 texts
 more
 intensively.
 It
 is
 evident
 that
 the
 deep
 involvement
and
the
discussions
of
those
times
have
profoundly
shaped
the
theoretical
 and
 methodological
 basis
 of
 our
 later
 institute.
 In
 those
 days
 our
 hopes
 were
 that
 the
 university
or
one
of
the
key
professors
would
create
such
an
institute
for
us.
We
were,
 after
all,
only
aspiring
youngsters
and
not
in
the
position
of
following
through
with
‘such
 a
 big
 thing’
 on
 our
 own
 (at
 least
 we
 thought
 so
 at
 the
 time).
 We
 may
 have
 fantasized
 about
our
 own
institute,
but
never
considered
it
a
realistic
and
sustainable
option.
That
 time
 was
 more
 often
 than
 not
 marked
 with
 frustration
 than
 grand
 visions.
 In
 effect,
 Psychology
&
Society,
2009,
Vol.
2
(1),
1
‐
7
 1 instead
 of
 founding
 an
 institute,
 we
 started
 a
 support
 group
 for
 disillusioned
 young
 psychologists
and
social
researchers.

 
 Out
of
context,
this
step
might
seem
peculiar.
However,
a
notable
atmosphere
of
lethargy
 that
 was
 spreading
 among
 many
 formerly
 enthusiastic
 students
 heightened
 our
 frustration
 in
 late
 2006.
 Scientific
 discussions
 were
 sagging
 and
 attendance
 to
 the
 abovementioned
 seminars
 was
 gradually
 shrinking.
 As
 it
 later
 turned
 out,
 many
 of
 us
 were
missing
a
true
sense
of
community
that
would
not
only
provide
exiting
discussions,
 but
 also
 allow
 sharing
 personal
 issues
 and
 concrete
 matters,
 in
 particular
 the
 intimidating
questions
of
finding
one’s
own
place
in
life
and
earning
money.
Facing
the
 economies
of
the
public
Austrian
university
sector,
the
road
into
academia
seemed
to
be
 a
dead
 end.
If
 there
 was
 nothing
to
be
 done
about
 our
 situation,
 at
least
we
wanted
 to
 share
our
personal
sentiments.
 
 We
 had,
 however,
 underestimated
 the
 power
 of
 solidarity.
 After
 only
 one
 or
 two
 sessions
 the
 shared
 frustration
 developed
 into
 the
 joint
 ambition
 of
 turning
 the
 academic
world
in
Vienna
upside
down.
In
December
2006
we
were
meeting
regularly
in
 Viennese
cafés
around
the
university
in
order
to
formulate
and
write
the
articles
of
our
 association.
The
news
spread
like
 a
bush
fire
amongst
friends,
and
soon
our
group
had
 grown
to
21
people,
who
were
willing
to
become
members
and
contribute
to
our
future
 institute.
Our
group
was
far
from
being
homogenous,
but
young
at
age
or
young
at
heart.
 Among
the
founders
were
aspiring
and
senior
psychologist,
sociologists,
communication
 researchers,
 philosophers,
 students,
 young
 business
 people
 and
 even
 self‐employed
 people
without
any
academic
background.
 
 Obviously,
the
biggest
challenge
has
been
to
let
this
heterogenic
‘critical
mass’
articulate
 itself
in
its
own
productive
way.
Meeting
for
sessions
regularly
has
done
the
trick
so
far.
 We
 established
 a
 jour
 fixe
 every
 two
 weeks
 in
 order
 to
 discuss
 topical
 issues
 and
 strategic
questions.
 
 One
 of
 the
 first
tasks
 of
our
 institute
 was
 to
find
and
 create
spaces
in
 which
we
could
 present
our
 thoughts
 and
our
work.
We
started
 off
by
 participating
 in
 an
international
 conference
 at
 the
 Ivan
Franko
University
of
 Lviv,
 Ukraine
where
we
 presented
 papers,
 master
 theses
 and
 dissertation
 concepts
 in
 2007.
 One
 year
 later
 we
 initiated
 our
 own
 cultural
 research
 presentation
 at
 the
 Kliment
 Ohrid
 University
 of
 Sofia,
 Bulgaria.
 Both
 events
 offered
 an
 abundance
of
 international
 contacts
with
other
 researchers,
 some
 of
 which
are
now
providing
commentaries
to
the
papers
of
this
issue.
 
 Meanwhile
 ikus
 has
 become
 an
 accredited
 institution
 of
 the
 Austrian
 Research
 Promotion
Agency
(FFG).
Our
members
are
teaching
and
researching
at
various
Austrian
 universities.
 Along
 with
 a
 clear
 focus
 on
 basic
 research,
 ikus
 has
 been
 carrying
 out
 around
20
projects
of
applied
research
for
companies
within
the
last
year.
In
the
sphere
 of
academic
training
we
have
initiated
regular
reading
groups
and
a
method
forum
for
 higher
 qualitative
 research
methods.
Since
October
 2008
psychology
students
 are
 able
 to
complete
their
compulsory
practical
training
at
ikus.1
 
 The
shared
experience
of
realizing
some
of
our
aspirations,
or,
as
Nietzsche
might
put
it,
 transforming
our
 “chaos”
 into
 a
 “dancing
star”
(Nietzsche,
 1885,
 p.15),
is
probably
the
 1
For
more
information
see:
www.ikus.cc
 Psychology
&
Society,
2009,
Vol.
2
(1),
1
‐
7
 2 greatest
 joy
 for
 each
 of
 us.
 It
 has
 not
 only
 strengthened
 us
 as
 a
 group
 and
 made
 the
 initial
founders
more
self‐confident,
but
has
also
attracted
new
members.
At
its
core
ikus
 is
 a
 great
 pool
 of
 people
 who
 help
 and
 support
 each
 other
 through
 their
 networks,
 expertise
 and
emotional
backings.
 In
this
respect
the
cohesion
of
our
institute
can
also
 be
seen
as
the
practical
counterpart
to
our
theoretical
 credo
of
cultural
psychology
and
 qualitative
social
research.
 
 OUTLOOK
AND
STANDPOINT
OF
THE
INSTITUTE

 
 As
 an
 institute
 which
 investigates
 cultural‐psychological
 questions,
 ikus
 applies
 a
 methodological
 framework
 from
 which
 cultural
 phenomena
 can
 be
 understood
 and
 analysed.
 Drawing
on
 the
 rich
 tradition
of
qualitative
research
strategies
 our
aim
 is
to
 combine
 theoretical
 reflections
 with
 practical
 empirical
 research
 within
 various
 social
 fields.
Furthermore,
we
aspire
to
re‐insert
the
gathered
knowledge
into
the
social
field
 by
 initiating
 projects
 and
 activities
 which
 can
 and
 should
 help
 develop
 culturally
 sensitive
 forms
 of
 social
 practise.
 In
 doing
 so,
 we
 seek
 to
 avoid
 reductionist
 and
 one‐ sided
models
of
society
and
culture,
as
for
example
ethno‐centristic
concepts
might
do.

 
 Understanding
Culture
and
Cultural
Psychology
 
 In
our
understanding
‘culture’
 is
seen
as
a
heterogeneous
phenomenon,
which
is
rooted
 in
everyday
 practise
and
consists
of
acts
as
well
as
the
materialisations
of
such
acts
(e.g.
 objects,
 texts,
 institutions
 etc.).
 The
 latter
 is
 of
 particular
 importance
 to
 the
 nature
 of
 cultural
psychology
in
Vienna,
which
is
related
to
media
theory
and
material
culture
(see
 Slunecko,
2008;
Slunecko
&
Hengl,
2006).
As
opposed
to
classical
thinking,
the
cultural
 concept
 employed
 at
 ikus
 neither
 draws
 on
 the
 traditional
 distinction
 between
 high,
 popular
 or
 trivial
 cultural
 manifestations,
 nor
 does
 it
 follow
 the
 concept
 of
 national
 culture.
 Instead
 ‘cultures’
 are
 conceived
 as
 spheres
 of
 experience
 (Erfahrungsräume)
 (Mannheim,
1980),
which
are
constituted
in
relation
to
others
(as
 human
beings),
to
the
 other
 (as
materialisations
 of
 practises),
to
 the
manifold
 social
 practises
in
 which
social
 relations
 are
 per‐
 and
 transformed
 and
 to
 the
 media
 involved.
 According
 to
 Slunecko
 (2008)
human
beings,
 culture
 and
media
 cannot
be
comprehended
separately
from
one
 another.
 Their
 reciprocal
 interplay
 is
 fundamental
 to
 what
 he
 calls
 the
 “dynamic
 constitution.”
Therefore
our
cultural
concept
does
not
separate
culture
from
its
human
 constituents,
 but
 understands
 culture
 as
 the
 indispensable
 atmosphere
 that
 they
 are
 breathing
 and
 supplying.
 According
 to
 Hall
 and
 Ha
 (Hall,
 2004;
 Ha,
 2002;
 2004)
 ‘cultures’
 are
 never
 closed
 systems
 of
 relations
 but
 are
 constantly
 changing
 and
 thus
 open
to
new
and
sometimes
even
contradictory
developments.
Therefore
the
historical,
 social
and
mediated
dynamics
of
culture
and
human
beings
are
 the
key
elements
 of
our
 approach
to
cultural
psychology.

 
 Qualitative
Methods
 
 Based
 on
 the
 abovementioned
 concept
 of
 culture,
 as
 social
 practise
 and
 sphere
 of
 experience
 (Erfahrungsraum),
 ikus
 conducts
 research
 projects
 in
 various
 social
 fields
 using
a
variety
of
qualitative
research
methods.
The
aim
is
to
develop
ways
of
advanced
 theorizing
 of
 specific
 cultural
 practises
 and
 processes,
 thereby
 developing
 a
 differentiated
 insight
 into
 the
 rules
 that
 govern
 cultural
 life.
 Following
 the
 logic
 of
 qualitative
research
methodology,
our
work
starts
with
analyses
of
everyday
action
and
 experience.
In
doing
so,
we
 seek
to
avoid
schemes
of
interpretation
that
reduce
complex
 Psychology
&
Society,
2009,
Vol.
2
(1),
1
‐
7
 3 social
phenomena
to
simplistic
causal
relations.
In
contrast,
our
aim
is
to
account
for
the
 complexity
 of
 the
 Lebenswelt
 (life
 world)
 (Schütz,
 1971).
 Our
 focus
 is
 put
 on
 the
 structures
of
meaning
which
underlie
social
relations.
In
this
context,
meaning
is
seen
on
 the
one
hand
as
partially
reflexive
knowledge
that
can
be
directly
obtained
by
explicitly
 questioning
 people.
 On
 the
 other
 hand,
 meaning
 is
 also
 incorporated
 implicitly
 in
 our
 everyday
 actions
 as
 a
 performative
 form
 of
 knowing­how­to­do­something
 (Mannheim,
 1980;
 Bourdieu,
 1987;
 1997).
 This
 action
 based
 knowledge
 is
 not
 accessible
 to
 direct
 techniques
of
communication
and
therefore
requires
more
refined
methods
of
empirical
 research
(e.g.
Bohnsack,
2007,
Przyborski
&
Wohlrab‐Sahr,
2008).
 ikus
deals
with
both
 of
 these
 forms
of
 socially
constitutive
knowledge.
We
 are
 particularly
interested
in
 the
 intersection
between
the
reflexive
(what
we
think)
and
the
implicit
(what
shows
in
our
 acts)
aspects
of
knowledge
in
everyday
practise.

 
 ikus
as
a
Critical
Project
 
 As
part
of
our
affiliation
with
the
methodology
of
qualitative
social
research,
we
reflect
 on
 our
own
 position
as
researchers—within
the
 social
 fields
 we
investigate
 and
in
our
 own
 cultural
 practise—which
 is
 our
 scientific
 practise
 (Przyborski
 &
 Wohlrab‐Sahr,
 2008).
 This
 also
 implies
 the
 option,
 and
 sometimes
 the
 responsibility,
 to
 criticize
 practises
 which
 we
 understand
 as
 reductionist
 in
 regard
 to
 our
 perception
 of
 culture
 and
 human
 relations
 within
 social
 practises
 and
 institutions
 (Reisigl
 &
 Wodak,
 2001;
 Jäger,
 2008).
 Thus,
 the
 social,
 economic,
 and
 political
 context
 of
 our
 work
 plays
 an
 important
role
in
the
research
and
practical
activities
conducted
at
ikus.
On
the
basis
of
 our
 scientific
 expertise
 we
 try
 to
 formulate
 concepts
 that
 can
 be
 adopted
 for
 the
 improvement
 of
 specific
 cultural
 interactions
 and
 processes.
 In
 this
 sense
 we
 see
 our
 work
 not
 only
 as
 a
 scientific
 enterprise,
 but
 also
 as
 a
 social
 practise
 in
 a
 wider
 sense,
 which
includes
petitioning
for
change
and
improvement
in
areas
we
study
and
thereby
 interact
 with.
 We
 further
 see
 our
 work
 as
 the
 opportunity
 to
 reflect
 on
 one’s
 own
 cultural
 practises
from
different
angles
and
thus
enabling
a
better
understanding
of
the
 perspectives
that
underlie—often
misunderstood
or
not
seen
at
all—our
actions
within
 our
lives.

 
 Perspectives
 
 ikus
 is
 a
 place
 in
 which
 scientific
 exchange
 between
 scholars
 of
 multiple
 disciplines
 of
 cultural
 study
 is
 encouraged
 and
 in
 which
 independent
 research
 and
 publication
 projects—such
as
this
one—are
supported.
As
 an
independent
institute
ikus
 aspires
to
 provide
possibilities
for
young
researchers
to
follow
their
own
scientific
interests
within
 the
field
of
cultural
sciences.
 Apart
from
its
research
activities,
ikus
offers
opportunities
 for
qualification
and
professional
development.
The
exchange
between
advanced
social
 research
 and
 practical
 application
 and
 refinement
 of
 concepts
 developed
 allows
 for
 a
 fluent
exchange
 of
experience
between
the
so‐called
academia
and
those
areas
of
social
 life,
in
which
the
accumulated
knowledge
can
be
put
to
work
(such
as
coaching,
training
 and
clinical‐psychological
counselling).
 ikus
stands
for
scientific
freedom,
exchange,
and
 diversity,
and
a
critical
interest
in
the
world
we
live
in.
The
mutual
recognition
of
social
 theory
and
praxis
are
at
the
foundation
of
our
work.
 
 
 
 
 Psychology
&
Society,
2009,
Vol.
2
(1),
1
‐
7
 4 THIS
ISSUE
–
AN
OVERVIEW
OF
THE
ARTICLES
 
 In
 an
 attempt
 to
introduce
some
 research
 interests
 of
members
 of
 ikus,
we
 have
come
 forth
with
a
collection
of
articles
to
 compose
this
special
issue.2
The
 idea
of
this
special
 issue
 focusing
 on
 research
 conducted
 mostly
 by
 scientists
 from
 this
 institute
 was
 to
 introduce
some
of
the
topics
which
are
of
interest
to
members
of
ikus
and
in
general
to
 social
 researchers
 in
 Vienna.
 A
 further
 aim
 was
 to
 establish
 a
 ground
 on
 which
 discussions
between
scholars
from
different
countries
and
disciplines
can
take
place.
All
 of
the
main
articles
 were
written
 by
scholars
who
are
affiliated
with
the
Viennese
social
 scientific
community
in
one
way
or
another.3
The
articles
are
commented
on
by
scholars
 from
 other
 disciplines
 or
 other
 countries.
 The
 contributors
 of
 this
 special
 issue
 incorporate
 undergraduate
 students
 (for
 some
 of
 them
 this
 may
 be
 their
 first
 publication),
 graduate
 students,
 as
 well
 as
 advanced
 social
 scientific
 researchers
 who
 have
worked
in
the
field
for
many
years.
 
 An
Overview
of
the
Articles
 
 As
 the
 focus
 of
 our
 institute
 lies
 in
 combining
 theoretical,
 methodological,
 as
 well
 as
 empirical
 work
 in
 the
 social
 sciences
 this
 special
 issue
 is
 comprised
 of
 papers
 representing
all
three
fields.
 Within
the
theoretical
realm,
Nora
Ruck
opens
this
special
 issue
 with
 her
 critical
 analyses
 of
 the
 conception
 of
 the
 body
 in
 dialogical
 self
 theory:
 Some
Historical
 Dimensions
of
the
‘Dialogical
Body’:
From
Bakhtin’s
Dialogical
Grotesque
 Body
 to
the
 Monological
 Body
 of
 Modernity
 (pp.
8‐17).
 She
draws
 a
historical
sketch
in
 which
 a
shift
from
the
perception
of
‘being
a
body’
and
‘having
a
body’
can
be
detected.
 The
dialogical
self
theory
also
receives
some
attention
in
the
second
article,
Reflexive
and
 Non­reflexive
Identity
Perceptions:
Finding
a
Balance,
composed
by
Katharina
Hametner
 and
Amrei
C.
Joerchel
(pp.
 22‐28).
 In
general
Hametner
and
Joerchel
criticize
the
heavy
 emphasis
 on
 the
 reflexive
 aspects
 in
 identity
 theories
 and
 argue
 for
 a
 position
 which
 incorporates
reflexive
as
well
as
non‐reflexive
aspects.
 
 The
third
paper,
 Discourse
Analysis
and
Social
 Critique,
by
Markus
Wrbouschek
(pp.
 36‐ 44),
deals
with
a
critical
reflection
of
discourse
analysis
and
its
critical
agenda
within
the
 social
 sciences.
 Wrbouschek mainly argues for a position in which the scientist and his critique are always ‘trapped’ within the discourse himself/herself. Petra
Steiner
and
Barbara
 Pichler
 discuss
 concrete
 examples
 of
 applying
 specific
 methodological
 approaches,
 in
 their
 case
 objective
 hermeneutics,
 with
 their
 example
 of
 female
 adult
 education:
 ‘Objective
Hermeneutic’:
 Methodological
Reflections
on
Social
Structures
in
Women’s
Lives
 (pp.
50‐54).
Steiner
and
Pichler
map
out
why
an
objective
hermeneutic
approach
serves
 this
 particular
 kind
 of
 social
 research
 best.
 In
 her
 paper
 Re­Constructing
 Women’s
 Experience
 of
 Sexual
 Pain:
 The
 ‘Deviant’
Body
 as
an
Object
of
Cultural
Psychological
and
 Feminist
Considerations
(pp.
 60‐71),
Riegler
exemplifies
how
a
‘disorder’
can
be
terribly
 misunderstood
 and
 mistreated
 if
 the
 general
 medical
 and
 psychological
 approach
 does
 not
 allow
 for
 novel
 perspectives,
 e.g.
 a
cultural
psychological
perspective
 or
a
feminist
 one.

 2
We
thank
 MA7,
city
of
Vienna
for
their
financial
support.
 3
Most
of
them
are
also
members
of
ikus.
We
are
happy
to
also
welcome
one
contribution
of
two
Viennese
 social
 researchers
 who
 are
 not
 members,
 Petra
 Steiner
 and
 Barbara
 Pichler
 with
 their
 contribution
 on
 objective
hermeneutics.
 Psychology
&
Society,
2009,
Vol.
2
(1),
1
‐
7
 5 
 The
 following
 are
 examples
 of
 empirical
 studies.
 
 Martina
 Eberharter
 brings
 forth
 a
 paper
on
her
research
interest
 in
the
role
of
the
police:
 A
Grounded
Action
Study
on
the
 Role
 of
 the
 Police
 (pp.
 80‐86).
 Eberharter
discusses
 some
important
aspects
of
 societal
 norms
 as
 well
 as
 in‐group
 identity
 and
 how
 these
 are
 not
 only
 maintained,
 but
 also
 initiated.
Katja
Huber,
Marie‐Christin
Rissinger,
Birgit
Stabler
and
Daniel
Weigl
focus
on
 the
field
of
Viennese
female
prostitution.
In
their
paper
 A
Different
View
on
Prostitution:
 the
 World’s
 Oldest
Trade
or
a
Story
 of
Women
like
You
 and
Me
 (pp.
95‐98),
 Huber
 et
al.
 publish
 their
 first
 results
 from
 some
 research
 in
 which
 they
 conducted
 several
 interviews
with
various
key‐figures
in
the
world
of
Viennese
prostitution.
 
 In
 the
 vain
 of
 transcending
 the
 standard
 rigor
 of
 Austrian,
 and
 more
 specifically
 Viennese
academia,
we
have
aimed
at
opening
up
borders
to
people
with
diverse
ideas,
 critical
 perspectives,
 various
 levels
 of
 education
 and,
 most
 importantly,
 an
 interest
 in
 research
 in
 its
 purest
 form.
 The
 result
 may
 seem
 rather
 eclectic,
 as
 we
 have
 tried
 to
 involve
 many
 young
 and
upcoming
 scholars.
 The
goal
 was
 not
 to
intimidate
 by
putting
 up
 rigorous
selection
procedures
that
would
favour
 specific
perspectives.
Furthermore,
 in
 order
 to
 foster
 discussions,
 we
 invited
 various
 scholars
 from
 different
 universities
 and/or
 countries
 to
 write
 commentaries.
 We
 would
 like
 to
 take
 this
 opportunity
 to
 thank
 all
the
 contributors
 and
at
 the
same
 time
 encourage
further
 exchange
 for
 future
 projects.




















 
 References4
 
 Bohnsack,
Ralf
(2007).
Rekonstruktive
Sozialforschung.
Einführung
in
qualitative
 Methoden.
Opladen
&
Farmington
Hills:
Budrich.
 Bourdieu,
Pierre
(1997).
Sozialer
Sinn.
Kritik
der
theoretischen
Vernunft.
Frankfurt/Main:
 Suhrkamp.
 Bourdieu,
Pierre
(1987).
Die
feinen
Unterschiede.
Kritik
der
gesellschaftlichen
Urteilskraft.
 Frankfurt/Main:
Suhrkamp.
 Ha,
Kien
Nghi
(2002).
Identität
und
antirassistische
Identitätspolitik
unter
den
 Bedingungen
kolonialer
und
rassistischer
Präsenzen
(33‐46).
In
Ljubomir
Bratic
 (Ed.).
Landschaften
der
Tat.
Vermessung,
Transformationen
und
Ambivalenzen
in
 Europa.
St.
Pölten:
Sozaktiv.

 Ha,
Kien
Nghi
(2004).
Ethnizität
und
Migration
Reloaded.
Kulturelle
Identität,
Differenz
 und
Hybridität
im
postkolonialen
Diskurs.
Berlin:
wvb.
 Hall,
Stuart
(2004).
Die
Frage
des
Multikulturalismus
(188‐227).
In
Ideologie,
Identität
 und
Repräsentation.
Hamburg:
Argument.
188‐227.

 Jäger,
Siegfried
(Ed.)
(2008).
Wie
kritisch
ist
die
kritische
Diskursanalyse?
Ansätze
zu
einer
 Wende
kritischer
Wissenschaft.
Münster:
Unrast.
 Mannheim,
Karl
(1980).
Strukturen
des
Denkens.
Frankfurt/Main:
Suhrkamp.
 Nietzsche,
Friedrich.
(2009).
Thus
spoke
Zarathustra.
USA:
Oxford University Press. (Original German work published 1885)
 Przyborski,
Aglaja
&
Wohlrab‐Sahr,
Monika
(2008).
Qualitative
Sozialforschung.
Ein
 Arbeitsbuch.
München:
Oldenbourg
Verlag.
 Reisigl,
Martin
&
Wodak,
Ruth
(2001).
Discourse
and
discrimination.
Rhetorics
of
racism
 and
anti­semitism.
London
&
New
York:
Routledge.
 4
Contrary
to
APA
guideline
regulations,
the
 references
 include
the
authors’
first
name
in
order
to
make
 women
 in
science
more
visible.
Due
to
androcentric
schemes
of
perception
we
implicitly
tend
to
expect
 men
behind
names
which
are
not
marked
as
female.
 Psychology
&
Society,
2009,
Vol.
2
(1),
1
‐
7
 6 Schütz,
Alfred
(1971).
Gesammelte
Aufsätze
I.
Das
Problem
der
sozialen
Wirklichkeit.
Den
 Haag:
Martinus
Nijhoff.
 Slunecko,
Thomas
(2008).
Von
der
Konstruktion
zur
dynamischen
Konstitution.
 Beobachtungen
auf
der
eigenen
Spur.
2.
überarb.
Aufl.
Wien:
Facultas
 Slunecko,
Thomas
&
Hengl,
Sophie
(2006).
Culture
and
media.
A
dynamic
constitution.
 Culture
and
Psychology,
12,
1,
69‐85
 
 AUTHOR
BIOGRAPHIES
 
 Katharina
Hametner
is
a
psychologist
and
PhD‐scholar
at
the
University
of
Vienna.
She
is
 lecturing
 at
the
Sigmund
Freud
University,
Vienna
and
a
founding
 member
of
 ikus.
 Her
 main
research
interests
are
identity
theory,
 qualitative
methods,
migration,
and
cultural
 [email protected] 
 Stefan
Hampl
has
graduated
in
psychology
and
business
 administration
in
Vienna.
He
is
 executive
 chairman
 and
 a
 founding
 member
 of
 ikus,
 coordinator
 of
 the
 psychology
 program
at
the
Sigmund
Freud
University,
Vienna
and
a
PhD‐scholar
at
the
University
of
 Vienna.
His
research
focus
is
qualitative
video
ana[email protected] 
 Amrei
 C.
Joerchel
 is
 currently
working
on
 her
PhD
 at
 the
 University
 in
 Vienna
and
has
 started
 her
 postgraduate
 training
 to
 become
 a
 psychotherapist.
 In
 her
 research
 she
 is
 mainly
 interested
 in
 the
 concept
 of
 identity
 and
 culture.
 She
 is
 a
 founding
 member
 of
 [email protected] 
 Markus
Wrbouschek
has
studied
psychology
and
philosophy
at
the
University
of
Vienna
 (Magister
 in
psychology).
 He
 is
 currently
 lecturing
 at
the
 Sigmund
 Freud
University
 in
 Vienna.
 Scientific
 interests
 include
 economic
 psychology,
 qualitative
 research
 methods/methodology—especially
discourse
analysis.
The
author
is
a
founding
member
 [email protected] 
 
 Psychology
&
Society,
2009,
Vol.
2
(1),
1
‐
7
 7 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/06/2011 for the course PSYCH 212 taught by Professor Dansullivan during the Spring '11 term at NYU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online