Current literature on teaching research methodology in the social sciences points to the changing nature of our world in terms of its complexity and diversity and how this affects the way in which we search for answers to related problems. New ways of approaching research problems that relate to the demands of practice need to be explored, which is in contrast with the ‘either-or’ world we coach our students for, that is to be either qualitative or quantitative researchers. Also, educational policy reform in South Africa has sought to address the issue of real-life relevance of curricula, and specifically, reformists have turned to proponents of Mode 2 knowledge to inform initiatives for change. This means that tertiary institutions will have to adjust the way in which they deliver education to future generations of South Africans. The aim of this study was to map the content of undergraduate research methodology courses at South African universities and to explore the beliefs held by some academics that inform the way in which these courses are constructed. Critical theory allowed the researcher to search for unequal distributions of power and is defined in this study in its oppressive role, that is, its productive ability to bring about inequalities and human suffering. As some critical social theorists embrace specific, and at times divergent, methodologies, a pluralistic approach, based on Habermas’ idea of the relative legitimacy of all theories and methods, was used to. The study revealed that there is a heavy reliance on the methods that are traditionally linked to the positivist paradigm. It also revealed that alternate paradigms focusing on philosophies that dictate the use of qualitative methods are increasingly included in methodology courses and juxtaposed against or used to supplement positivist approaches to research. As academics may struggle to let go of traditional paradigms, they may find a compromise in presenting both. By acknowledging the limitations of past curricula, academics actively seek to change these discourses, but by doing so they may be instituting new hegemonies. One of the findings of this study is thus that distinctions about the content of research courses are being made on a methodological level instead of also acknowledging the epistemological and pragmatic grounds for making choices. Moreover, it is argued that the consensus achieved regarding the curriculum for a research course is the result of conversations held between academics in an ideal speech situation that excludes other significant voices. The lecturers' dominance over the students is maintained in the dialogical activities that they undertake with colleagues that confirm their position of authority in academic society. Students recognise this authority and consent to it. It is proposed that the way forward for curriculum construction lies in establishing academic communities of practice that should be viewed as the type of university that Habermas would advocate: where academics need to share power and be open to the challenges that they face such as negotiating what is accepted as knowledge. / Thesis (DPhil (Psychology))--University of Pretoria, 2005. / Psychology / unrestricted

This research set out to explore the curriculum experiences of French-speaking students in a private tertiary education institution. The study was qualitative in nature and utilized narrative inquiry and the case study approach. Data-gathering methods included a blend of semistructured interviews, document analysis, participant observation and field notes. Data analysis employed content and thematic analyses. Findings that emerged from the study were seven-fold: First, the academic experiences of French-speaking students from pre-degree to third-year degree programme entailed a rigorous negotiation with the LoLT. They negotiated the pre-degree route to mainstream degree programme due to non-compliance with academic standards set for higher education. Second, French-speaking students negotiated the pre-degree route to mainstream degree programme because their curricula of study, while they negotiated secondary school education in French-speaking countries were not recognized by most South African public universities. Third, French-speaking students experienced a number of hidden curriculum experiences which were not visible but influenced the planned, enacted and assessed curricula. Fourth, the deportment of lecturers was a useful asset. Lecturers were sourced from different sociocultural perspectives of the world. The impact of lecturers’ deportment led to commitment to achieve excellence and dedication towards student learning. Fifth, the use of Zulu, Sotho and sporadic use of Afrikaans languages by lecturers became sociocultural experiences of French-speaking students. The impact of this was felt by French-speaking students when they took a longer time to negotiate transition from French-speaking to English-speaking. The rate at which white lecturers spoke and the unfamiliar accents of black South African lecturers became important aspects of experiences they negotiated at Montana College. Sixth, learning ensues when there is a hybridization of the three sociocultural factors namely language of communication, acculturation to the domain of influence and mediated identity. Seventh, it was found that power relations manifested themselves in different perspectives at Montana College. Lave and Wenger (1991) proposed that power relations exist in the field of education where teachers exercise their roles as facilitators of learning and students see that they are in possession of economic power, by virtue of the fact that they pay fees. Consequently the issues of power relations abound in the form of the “continuity-displacement contradictions” as suggested by Lave and Wenger (1991:115-116). Much new knowledge came to light, especially in terms of the three sociocultural factors (language, acculturation and identity). When these are in a state of redress, there is an emergent learning, depending on the extent of hybridization between the sociocultural factors. The magnitude of learning is conceptualized to depend on the extent of redress or hybridization among the sociocultural factors. / Curriculum and Instructional Studies / D. Ed. (Curriculum Studies)

當代「日本中國認識」1945年二次大戰結束面臨一次重大轉折。戰後開始的「中國研究」主要受到日本對於自身認同重建的看法；以及冷戰國際架構的影響。本文藉由「系譜學方法」，回溯戰後半世紀以來，日本對中國的研究角度經過什麼樣的變化？中日研究群體如何開展及互動？本文發現日本當地中國研究的典範演變，最初是因應西方現代學科的需要，以建立歷史理論與史觀。戰前以東洋史學與區域調查為主要典範。此兩種團體延續到戰後成為史學與區域研究兩種系譜。戰後初期（1945-54）佔有主要論述空間的是左派革命史觀研究群體，主要學術產出是實態調查、社會史方面的資料。第二階段（1955-64）是馬克思主義者對近代化論者，延續戰爭責任論爭中的研究主體問題。第三階段（1965-74）是隨著日本自身發展與文革演進，研究者依照對文革態度而分裂，自此主流是對經濟、政治、國際關係的研究。第四階段（1975-84）民國史觀強調社會主義中國與傳統中國以及中國與周邊國家的「雙重連續性」，這兩個思考脈絡最後集成為溝口的基體論與濱下的體系論。另外出現以近代化（民主化經濟發展）短暫的成為主要論述，之後隨著前兩者理論對西式近代的否定，開始找尋「亞洲價值」。第五階段（1985-94），面臨昭和年代與冷戰結束兩個重要分期，日本學界提出新亞洲學，強調區域多元性以及混成亞洲統合兩大觀念。新亞洲學中，不可避免的也繼承了戰前亞洲學的基本要素。綜觀而言，本研究不僅能提供對中國研究途徑更多的參考面向，也能為台灣的中國大陸研究學界提供更多元的研究方法，更能有助於對當代東亞局勢的瞭解。 / Modern “China studies” (sinology, modern china study, etc.) in Japan began in 1945, the end of Pacific War. It was in a very complicated situation because on the one hand, it must take mission on the revival of national confidence. On the other hand, it was influenced by post-war international system. This article attempts to analyze “Japanese China study” from a genealogical perspective. The article also tries to depict the “genealogy” of academic communities of Japanese China study and their research approaches. It is found that the paradigm change began in the need of discipline modernization,in order to build their historical theory and historical views. Two mainstreams before WWII are “touyougaku (orientalism)” and “regional study”. They became two major studies, “history” and “regional science” after war. In the first period (1945-54), the leading group “revolution historian’ (Marxist or lefters) accomplished much research about “village investigation” and social history. In the second period (1955-64), Marxist (lefters) and Modernist debated the question of “research subjectivity” regarding war responsibility. In the third period (1965-74), researcher groups were affected by Culture Revolution, and became radical. After this deep confliction, they became neutral,and advocated to study economics, politics, and international relations of China. In the fourth period (1975-84), “R.O.C. perspective” emphasized “double continuity “ existing between socialist China and traditional China, and between core and periphery China, consisting of “Mizokuchi theory” and “Hamashita theory”. On the other hand, modernization (development theory) also rose up, considering Asian value as opposite of Western value. Therefore, in the fifth period (1985-94), facing the end of Showa period and cold war, scholars start to assert New Asianism, emphasizing diversity and cooperation among Asian countries. We could discover that New Asianism is similar to wartime Asianism, which is a symbol of Japanese China study that time. This study will not only clarify the Sinology in other culture, but also bring more approaches for scholars in Taiwan. / 日本における「中国研究」の最大な分岐点は1945年である。戦後の中国研究には、日本の自己認識を立て直す考え方が含まれている。さらに、冷戦時代の国際関係もまた中国研究に影響を及ぼしている。この状況の下で、中国研究は複雑な様相を呈している。本研究は、系譜学的方法を以って、この半世紀において、日本における中国研究が、どのような研究視点を採ってきたのか、また、学界がどのように形成され、内部にどのような会話・論争を経てきたのかを分析する。日本における中国研究のパラダイムは、最初は欧米の現代学科を真似て、自国の歴史理論や史観を発見しようとするものである。戦前の主なパラダイムは東洋史学と地域研究で、戦後その二つ系譜も続けている。戦後初期（1945－54）に、左派（革命史観）グループは主流で、実態調査や社会史に多くの力を入れていた。第二時期（1955-64）に、マルクス主義者と近代化論者は戦争責任の問題に沿い「研究者主体」について論争した。第三時期（1965-74）に、日本自身の経済発展や中国の文革の影響により、研究者グループが分裂し、激しい批判も出た。その後、一変して、「無価値」の経済や政治、外交など、つまり、「国情研究」が主流になった。第四時期（1975-84）に、民国史観や基体論、朝貢体系論など、社会主義中国と旧中国との「連続性」や中国中心と周辺国家との「連続性」に着目した研究が現れた。そのほか、アジア的な近代化論も大勢になり、「アジア価値」は再び脚光を浴びた。第五時期（1985-94）に、昭和時代と冷戦の終わりとともに、地域多様性とアジア協力を強調する「新アジア学」も出た。新アジア学と「戦前アジア学」が多くの共通性があるため、同じ系譜に属することを本研究によって解明できる。本研究は、台湾におけるこれまで中国研究に対して、新たな研究方法を紹介し、示唆的な観点を与えることが予想される。

Contexte : L’engagement des patients dans les soins de santé et en gouvernance a fait l’objet de plusieurs études au cours de la dernière décennie, mais aucune ne s’est intéressée à leur engagement au niveau stratégique d’un Groupe de médecine de famille universitaire (GMF-U). En 2017, les gestionnaires du GMF-U de Verdun, situé à Montréal, au Canada, ont décidé de mettre en place une approche de co-construction avec des patients ressources au sein de leur comité de gouvernance, afin d’améliorer la qualité et la pertinence des soins et des services, de l’enseignement et de la recherche au sein de l’organisation. Objectifs : 1) Évaluer le rôle et l’influence des patients ressources sur la prise de décision au sein d’un comité de gestion dans un GMF-U ; 2) déterminer les facteurs favorables et les obstacles à l’engagement de patients ressources sur un comité de gestion dans un GMF-U ; 3) évaluer l’impact de cette innovation sur la promotion d’une culture de partenariat à travers l’organisation. Méthodes : À partir d’une étude de cas unique, à trois niveaux d’analyse, les données ont été collectées au niveau du 1) CIUSSS ; 2) comité de gouvernance du GMF-U ; 3) GMF-U. De juin 2017 à mai 2019, des données qualitatives ont été collectées via deux groupes de discussion de quatre et quatorze personnes, quatre entretiens semi-dirigés, des documents et un journal de bord. Des données quantitatives ont également été collectées à partir de questionnaires. Résultats : La mise en valeur du rôle des patients ressources, soit le partage de leur savoir expérientiel, repose sur une démarche d’engagement structurée qui inclut un processus de recrutement rigoureux, la formation et le coaching de l’ensemble des membres du comité et l’élaboration de modalités de travail qui répondent aux conditions de participation des patients. Un leadership aux multiples niveaux organisationnels est également essentiel afin de soutenir la culture de partenariat et la démarche de co-construction en gouvernance. Conclusion : Les résultats de cette étude illustrent les possibilités et les défis liés à la participation de patients au niveau de la gouvernance d’un GMF-U et permettront de guider d’autres GMF-U ou GMF intéressés en ce sens. / Background: Patient engagement in primary care has been the focus of many studies in the past decade, however little research has evaluated its added value to organisational management in an academic community-based primary care practice (ACBPCP). In 2017, managers of an ACBPCP in Montreal, Canada, decided to integrate patients into the organization’s management committee to enhance the quality and relevance of decision-making for clinical services, education and research. Objectives: 1) Assess patient advisors’ role and influence on an ACBPCP management committee’s decision-making process; 2) identify the facilitators of and obstacles to patient engagement in this context; and 3) evaluate the impact of this innovative approach in promoting a patient-partnership culture throughout the organization. Design: Using a single case study, data was collected from three levels: 1) the professionals in charge of patient partnership within the territorial health care organization’s quality division; 2) the management committee; and 3) the ACBPCP’s staff outside the committee. From June 2017 to May 2019, qualitative data was collected through two focus groups, four interviews, documents and a logbook, and quantitative data was collected through questionnaires. Results: Patient advisors’ role on the strategic committee is to share their perspective based on experiential knowledge. Successful patient governance relies on a structured engagement approach, including a rigorous recruitment process of patient advisors, training and coaching of all committee members and the development of work modalities that meet the conditions of patient participation. Multilevel leadership is also fundamental to support a partnership culture throughout the organisation, including at the governance level. Conclusion: The results of this study illustrate opportunities and challenges related to patient involvement at an ACBPCP’s organizational level. They can guide other community-based primary care practices interested in involving patients in their management activities.