Pragmatismus und seine Rezeption in der deutschen Sportpädagogik

A discourse analysis of sports pedagogy regarding the pragmatic turn shows clearly that sports pedagogy has taken up ideas from other disciplines only in a coincidental or haphazard way. Genuine new forms of action or reflection were not recognized or did not show themselves in the discipline outside of common pedagogical discourses. Such resistance concerning concepts from other disciplines shows itself especially clearly in the turns following the pragmatic turn. Only where the “narrative turn” is concerned do we see traces of this discourse in sports pedagogy as well. However, these traces have already faded in the last 10 years. There are two reasons that sports pedagogy does not engage in discourse with other disciplines. Firstly, the obvious value of sport and physical exercise can make it seem unnecessary for sports pedagogy to meddle in the arguments of pedagogic worth experienced in other subjects. Secondly, the discipline still appears to be caught up in the mythology and terminology of German idealism.     

Warum scheiterte 1920 August Biers Antrag auf einen „Doktor der Leibesübungen“?

This article deals with the first years of foundation of the private Deutsche Hochschule für Leibesübungen (DHfL). It focuses on the question of why August Bier’s application for a Doktor der Leibesübungen in 1920 was refused. In the same year the DHfL also made an application for the education in state-run schools which was already task of the state-run Preußische Landesturnanstalt at Spandau. As the DHfL combined this application with its insistence on its autonomous status an application for a Doktor der Leibesübungen had implied financial, conceptual and institutional obligations for Prussia and at the same time a renuncitation of its sovereign rights. This thesis was proved by a comparison between the doctorate in physical education and the doctorate for businessmen at Cologne University.     

Abandoning Either/Ors in Analyzing Shifts in Humanitarian Reporting

ABSTRACT

The shifting constitution of journalists as humanitarian actors has profound implications for changing forms of journalism practice, as well as for the normative models through which journalists understand and reflect on that practice. In an effort to develop a more empirically-grounded engagement with change, this article explores the interview testimonies of Australian journalists who cover international and humanitarian issues. It argues that frameworks reliant on stark oppositions (between past and present, optimism and pessimism, or moral agency and material structure) are both empirically and practically problematic, and seeks to move beyond these. Engagement with data from semi-structured interviews offers insight into how journalists’ perceptions of and responses to change are shaped by the historical and shifting institutional relations in which they are implicated.