Mapping Peace Journalism: Toward a Shared Understanding of Success

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Meagan E. Doll ◽  
Patricia Moy
Author(s):  
Ellen Kristine Solbrekke Hansen

AbstractThis paper aims to give detailed insights of interactional aspects of students’ agency, reasoning, and collaboration, in their attempt to solve a linear function problem together. Four student pairs from a Norwegian upper secondary school suggested and explained ideas, tested it out, and evaluated their solution methods. The student–student interactions were studied by characterizing students’ individual mathematical reasoning, collaborative processes, and exercised agency. In the analysis, two interaction patterns emerged from the roles in how a student engaged or refrained from engaging in the collaborative work. Students’ engagement reveals aspects of how collaborative processes and mathematical reasoning co-exist with their agencies, through two ways of interacting: bi-directional interaction and one-directional interaction. Four student pairs illuminate how different roles in their collaboration are connected to shared agency or individual agency for merging knowledge together in shared understanding. In one-directional interactions, students engaged with different agencies as a primary agent, leading the conversation, making suggestions and explanations sometimes anchored in mathematical properties, or, as a secondary agent, listening and attempting to understand ideas are expressed by a peer. A secondary agent rarely reasoned mathematically. Both students attempted to collaborate, but rarely or never disagreed. The interactional pattern in bi-directional interactions highlights a mutual attempt to collaborate where both students were the driving forces of the problem-solving process. Students acted with similar roles where both were exercising a shared agency, building the final argument together by suggesting, accepting, listening, and negotiating mathematical properties. A critical variable for such a successful interaction was the collaborative process of repairing their shared understanding and reasoning anchored in mathematical properties of linear functions.


Author(s):  
Polly Mitchell ◽  
Alan Cribb ◽  
Vikki Entwistle

AbstractThis paper analyses the ethics of routine measurement for healthcare improvement. Routine measurement is an increasingly central part of healthcare system design and is taken to be necessary for successful healthcare improvement efforts. It is widely recognised that the effectiveness of routine measurement in bringing about improvement is limited—it often produces only modest effects or fails to generate anticipated improvements at all. We seek to show that these concerns do not exhaust the ethics of routine measurement. Even if routine measurement does lead to healthcare improvements, it has associated ethical costs which are not necessarily justified by its benefits. We argue that the practice of routine measurement changes the function of the healthcare system, resulting in an unintended and ethically significant transformation of the sector. It is difficult to determine whether such changes are justified or offset by the benefits of routine measurement because there may be no shared understanding of what is ‘good’ in healthcare by which to compare the benefits of routine measurement with the goods that are precluded by it. We counsel that the practice of routine measurement should proceed with caution and should be recognised to be an ethically significant choice, rather than an inevitability.


2021 ◽  
pp. 205343452110087
Author(s):  
Antoinette T Reerink ◽  
Jet Bussemaker ◽  
C Bastiaan Leerink ◽  
Jan AM Kremer

People who have complex problems affecting multiple areas of their lives need a different approach than people who have singular health conditions. They benefit more from an effectively cooperating support network that explores appropriate ways of providing assistance, rather than a strong focus on outcome-based care.


2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariella Bastian ◽  
Mykola Makhortykh ◽  
Tom Dobber

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework for assessing what are the possibilities and pitfalls of using algorithmic systems of news personalization – i.e. the tailoring of individualized news feeds based on users’ information preferences – for constructive conflict coverage in the context of peace journalism, a journalistic paradigm calling for more diversified and creative war reporting.Design/methodology/approachThe paper provides a critical review of existing research on peace journalism and algorithmic news personalization, and analyzes the intersections between the two concepts. Specifically, it identifies recurring pitfalls of peace journalism based on empirical research on constructive conflict coverage and then introduces a conceptual framework for analyzing to what degree these pitfalls can be mediated – or worsened – through algorithmic system design.FindingsThe findings suggest that AI-driven distribution technologies can facilitate constructive war reporting, in particular by countering the effects of journalists’ self-censorship and by diversifying conflict coverage. The implementation of these goals, however, depends on multiple system design solutions, thus resonating with current calls for more responsible and value-sensitive algorithmic design in the domain of news media. Additionally, our observations emphasize the importance of developing new algorithmic literacies among journalists both to realize the positive potential of AI for promoting peace and to increase the awareness of possible negative impacts of new systems of content distribution.Originality/valueThe article particle is the first to provide a comprehensive conceptualization of the impact of new content distribution techniques on constructive conflict coverage in the context of peace journalism. It also offers a novel conceptual framing for assessing the impact of algorithmic news personalization on reporting traumatic and polarizing events, such as wars and violence.


2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keren Tenenboim-Weinblatt ◽  
Thomas Hanitzsch ◽  
Rotem Nagar
Keyword(s):  

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 458-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ros Madden ◽  
Manuela Ferreira ◽  
Stewart Einfeld ◽  
Eric Emerson ◽  
Robert Manga ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 209 (6) ◽  
pp. 517-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rose McCabe ◽  
Paula John ◽  
Jemima Dooley ◽  
Patrick Healey ◽  
Annie Cushing ◽  
...  

BackgroundA better therapeutic relationship predicts better outcomes. However, there is no trial-based evidence on how to improve therapeutic relationships in psychosis.AimsTo test the effectiveness of communication training for psychiatrists on improving shared understanding and the therapeutic relationship (trial registration: ISRCTN94846422).MethodIn a cluster randomised controlled trial in the UK, 21 psychiatrists were randomised. Ninety-seven (51% of those approached) out-patients with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder were recruited, and 64 (66% of the sample recruited at baseline) were followed up after 5 months. The intervention group received four group and one individualised session. The primary outcome, rated blind, was psychiatrist effort in establishing shared understanding (self-repair). Secondary outcome was the therapeutic relationship.ResultsPsychiatrists receiving the intervention used 44% more self-repair than the control group (adjusted difference in means 6.4, 95% CI 1.46–11.33, P<0.011, a large effect) adjusting for baseline self-repair. Psychiatrists rated the therapeutic relationship more positively (adjusted difference in means 0.20, 95% CI 0.03–0.37, P = 0.022, a medium effect), as did patients (adjusted difference in means 0.21, 95% CI 0.01–0.41, P = 0.043, a medium effect).ConclusionsShared understanding can be successfully targeted in training and improves relationships in treating psychosis.


2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-159
Author(s):  
Dale Jacquette

Abstract The concept of a dialogue is considered in general terms from the standpoint of its referential presuppositions. The semantics of dialogue implies that dialogue participants must generally have a collective intentionality of agreed-upon references that is minimally sufficient for them to be able to disagree about other things, and ideally for outstanding disagreements to become clearer at successive stages of the dialogue. These points are detailed and illustrated in a fictional dialogue, in which precisely these kinds of referential confusions impede progress in shared understanding. It is only through a continuous exchange of question and answer in this dialogue case study that the meanings of key terms and anaphorical references are disambiguated, and a relevantly complete collective intentionality of shared meaning between dialogue participants is achieved. The importance of a minimally shared referential semantics for the terms entering into reasoning and argument in dialogue contexts broadly construed cannot be over-estimated. Where to draw the line between referential agreement and disagreement within any chosen dialogue, as participants work toward better mutual understanding in clearing up referential incongruities, is sometimes among the dialogue’s main points of dispute.


Author(s):  
Frank Lattuch ◽  
Patricia Dankert

Purpose Top-management teams often have no shared understanding of the organizational vision, or they find it unhelpful for decision-making due to its vague and uninspiring style. The purpose of this paper is to test a theory-based workshop to effectively develop a shared vision for organizational development and learning. Design/methodology/approach Based on the Collins and Porras (2008) vision framework, the authors tested a workshop design with top management teams. Findings The outlined vision workshop is a useful tool to develop a shared organizational vision in a systematic way. Originality/value This paper provides a practical approach to vision building that is relevant and shared by top management teams. Lessons drawn from the case analysis provide insights into the means by which organizations can shape their development through a compelling, guiding force.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document