Context: Traditional research on the fiction/non-fiction distinction is the fruit of an essentialist methodology in which the procedures of ontologizing and textualizing are assumed as obligatory. Ontologizing and textualizing form the basic discursive technique, in which analyses are focused on the object as the semantic centre. Theory of literary fiction – deeply rooted in Alexius Meinong’s theory of non-existent objects – is object-orientated and, as a result, is always ontologically involved/engaged. Problem: The re-description of the fundamental literary problems as a kind of epistemological experiment for which non-dualizing philosophy is a foundation. Considerations are aimed at providing answers/solutions to the three following issues: 1. Is it possible to connect non-dualism with a literary discourse about literary fiction? 2. What difference does the non-dualizing perspective make in comparison to a philologically-orientated discourse? 3. What difference does the non-dualizing perspective make in comparison to the constructivist approach to the problem of fiction? Approach: Mitterer’s non-dualism is considered from both the context of ontologically-orientated discourse about fiction and literary research and the context of constructivist discourse about fiction. Results: Mitterer’s non-dualizing conception may be considered a foundation of a radical non-essentialist way of thinking about literary fiction. As a result, the philologically-orientated research on literary text, focused on the explanation of its semantics, would rather move towards a culturally-, pragmatically-, and/or sociologically- orientated type of discourse. The notion of (literary) fiction should be reformulated as follows: fiction is not the reason for interpretation; fiction is the result of interpretation because the description comes from the object of speech (from-object-cognition). Implications: This is only an introduction to the project of a potential non-ontologizing discourse about literary fiction. Therefore it should be developed and discussed as the option for the dualizing type of the discourse as it still stirs up a lot of controversies.
The focus of this article is on the use of Niklas Luhmann’s systems theoretical approach in order to analyze interviews conducted with media workers concerning their experiences of ethnic diversity in newsrooms. Applying systems theory means constructing the interview as a social system and seeing the “data” as observations produced by the observer and not as representations of a reality. The first part of the article describes the interview methodology and the second part provides examples, from the current study, of how systems theory can be applied in order to analyze interviews. Using a difference-theoretical approach means looking at the distinctions the informants make when talking about their experiences.
Summary: Weber’s book… does away with the overcome, but seemingly indispensable truth concept behind every medium. Reporting reality does not mean rigidity but accepting changing (the) realities by reporting. The new “basis theory in media studies” (p. 351), which is the aim of the author, is due to find a widespread field for practical use – or at least it should, in a world not biased by dualistic thinking.
Purpose: The article deals with constructivism and media in two respects: on a general level with some aspects of the role of media in constructivism, and in particular with the role of constructivism in media socialization studies. Context: Media have been taken up as a topic in some parts of constructivist discourses. While some of the authors treat media as a subject of inquiry like other fields to which they are related – economics, society, or psychotherapy – others recognize constitutional aspects of media, too. Approach: The article focuses on various discourse threads in the German-language literature over the last decade. Various constructivist conceptions and assumptions are taken into consideration with a view to surveying their role in media socialization studies. The article will initially justify the need for reflecting on issues of modelling mediality and constructivity and their relation to each other. It points out several conceptual similarities and differences within constructivism and shows their relevance to media socialization studies. Furthermore, it provides an outline of the respective arguments and an introduction to interfaces of constructivism and media socialization. Findings: In line with different constructivist concepts, the fields of investigation are rather scattered and authors only partly pay attention to each other. This article puts some characteristics and capabilities of constructivist discourses up for debate with regard to selected aspects of media socialization. We find that contemporary media socialization studies do not refer to a single definition of media socialization or constructivism. Since the concepts discussed are published in German, it may also be seen as a benefit that they are made accessible to a wider audience.
Kumar K. J., Hug T. & Rusch G.
Construction of memory.SPIEL (Siegener Periodicum zur Internationalen Empirischen Literaturwissenschaft) 24(2): 211–222. Originally appeared in: Volkmer I. (ed.) (2006) News in public memory. An international study of media memories across generations. Lang, Frankfurt/M 2006:.
New media technologies, changing student learning styles and high employer expectations in a tightening job market necessitate innovation and constant adaptation of journalism and public relations teaching materials. Building on a constructivist paradigm, this essay proposes a service-based, collaborative approach to teaching that involves students, peers, employers and faculty. It offers a model, strategies and a case study using this teaching style. Faculty, students and employers benefit from departments that maintain a good relationship with key stakeholders and incorporate convergent media into course assignments. Collaboration and service learning also are essential to keeping up with emerging trends. Relevance: The paper addresses how to implement a constructive approach in service-learning projects.
Excerpt: Ich beginne diese Erläuterungen mit wahrnehmungs- und erkenntnistheoretischen Überlegungen, die als (empirisch gestützte) kognitionstheoretische Grundlage des Radikalen Konstruktivismus angesehen werden können. Danach stelle ich die philosophischen Konsequenzen dieser Modelle dar und wende mich abschließend der Aufnahme und Verarbeitung radikal konstruktivistischer Vorstellungen in verschiedenen Forschungsdisziplinen zu, um die interdisziplinäre Fruchtbarkeit konstruktivistischen Denkens exemplarisch zu illustrieren.