With the introduction of research activities in higher professional education in the Dutch higher education system, the notions of ‘research’ that were previously silently agreed upon among academics in traditional universities also came under pressure. Additionally, bothtypes of higher education actively claim to have educational programs of a different character. The ground underneath the difference is claimed to be the presence of distinct research activities. This study considers this difference through the discourse on ‘research’ of lecturers in both higher professional education and university education. In interviews, lecturers were asked to judge an argument on their own work-related activities to be ‘research’ or ‘nonresearch’. Through a network-analysis approach, the data results in five discursive building blocks that all lecturers apply in their arguments, and three discursive themes on research. Furthermore, this research indicates that differences among lecturers on discursive themes areonly partly based on institutional differences.
Citizens have responded to newcomers in the Netherlands with acts of solidarity and programmes to support integration, often in response to increasingly restrictive government policies. In a previously published study by the primary author, a critical discourse analysis was conducted of texts used in mandatory government integration programmes. Findings showed that texts discursively construct the “modern Us” the “unmodern Other” and a hierarchical relationship between the two, recreating in practice racialized categories reminiscent of colonial times. Considering the role citizen initiatives play in integration, it is important to also understand their discourse on integration. A critical discourse analysis using Bacchi’s What’s the Problem Represented to Be? approach was conducted on texts used in citizen initiatives for integration in the Netherlands. Additionally, as part of a larger institutional ethnography, ethnographic data was gathered on their day-to-day work. These data were analyzed through a theoretical lens inspired by occupational science, governmentality and post/decolonial studies. Initial findings show dominant discourses found in formal integration programmes being actively reproduced in citizen initiatives. Additionally, findings display concepts of ‘successful’ integration, the “Us”, and the “Other” being discursively shaped by promoting ‘modern’ occupations as part of ‘successful’ everyday life. Occupational science is a field with particular interest in social transformation projects, projects often based in the informal sector. Understanding how dominant discourses are reproduced in informal programmes provides important perspectives on their impact on everyday life, demonstrating the importance of remaining critical of discourses in projects operating in the peripheries.
MULTIFILE
Rationale: In this study, we aimed to explore how dietitians’ history-taking questions function during dietary counseling of clients with malnutrition (risk). Fruitful functioning of history-taking questions during the problem identification phase is crucial for dietitians to develop a client-centered dietary treatment plan.Methods: Using discursive psychology, we analyzed the problem identification phase of recorded dietitian-client conversations of 7 dietitians and 17 clients. Discursive psychology is a qualitative, inductive methodology that is used to analyze real-life conversations. Discursive psychology focuses on how descriptions in talk (including wording, intonation, pauses, non-verbal behavior) accomplish actions such as presenting oneself in a particular way.Results: Our analysis shows how, in response to dietitians’ history-taking questions, clients repeatedly demonstrate that they have already made some effort to self-help. Typically, these history-taking questions presume some biopsychosocial factor as the cause of the dietary problems discussed. In response, clients show they already started to eat extra, closely monitored their body weight, and tried to eat despite having no appetite. In addition, clients account for the absence of efforts by claiming various kinds of inability, such as facing difficulties in preparing food for oneself or by questioning whether their underlying medical condition caused the diet-related problem in the first place.Conclusion: This study shows that history-taking questions not only elicit answers with factual information but also evoke clients’ self-presentations. Responses from dietitians show little attention to the relevance of these self-presentations,while clients treat self-help as a normative requirement to demonstrate they have done everything they can before they sought professional help. To optimize the problem identification phase, we suggest that in addition to conversationaltechniques dietitians could increase their attention to clients’ actions performed.
