Submitted by Renata Lopes (renatasil82@gmail.com) on 2016-02-04T11:16:15Z No. of bitstreams: 1 paulaluisasilveirabarletta.pdf: 1651872 bytes, checksum: 77740d6d19b5a4e973abc4d839ea05c6 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Adriana Oliveira (adriana.oliveira@ufjf.edu.br) on 2016-02-05T11:07:47Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 paulaluisasilveirabarletta.pdf: 1651872 bytes, checksum: 77740d6d19b5a4e973abc4d839ea05c6 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-02-05T11:07:47Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 paulaluisasilveirabarletta.pdf: 1651872 bytes, checksum: 77740d6d19b5a4e973abc4d839ea05c6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-04-14 / As audiências de conciliação no PROCON são caracterizadas pela disputa de pontos de vista antagônicos entre reclamante (consumidor) e reclamado (fornecedor), mediados pelo representante desta instituição. Nesse cenário, o conflito de interesses entre as partes depende de uma intensa negociação/construção discursiva de “versões sobre os fatos”. Assim, a fala-em-interação desempenha um papel fundamental na negociação, pois todo o processo de argumentação é feito por meio dela e, dependendo do poder argumentativo dos participantes, a negociação terá ou não sucesso. Considerando as especificidades desse contexto situacional, os objetivos deste trabalho são investigar os movimentos argumentativos (MA, cf. GILLE, 2001) apresentados pelos participantes em três audiências no PROCON de uma cidade de Minas Gerais, verificar em quais fases das audiências os MA ocorrem e analisar os enquadres que orientam os participantes em relação ao que está acontecendo “aqui e agora” nessas interações. Os dados, gravados em áudio e transcritos de acordo com a convenção dos analistas da conversa (SACKS, SCHEGLOFF e JEFFERSON, 1974), pertencem ao acervo do Grupo de Pesquisa do CNPq “Linguagem e Sociedade: aspectos teóricos e empíricos”. A pesquisa é qualitativa e interpretativa (ERICKSON, 1986; DENZIN e LINCOLN, 2005) e segue os pressupostos da Sociolinguística Interacional (GOFFMAN, 1974, [1979] 2002). Para análise da argumentação, tomamos como base os modelos argumentativos de Vieira (2003, 2007), que têm como componentes a posição, a disputa e a sustentação (SCHIFFRIN, 1987), categorias às quais são associados movimentos argumentativos (GILLE, 2001), argumentos de sustentação referenciados pela literatura (GARCIA, 1978) e movimentos opcionais de avaliação (VIEIRA, 2007). Os resultados do estudo mostram que, no contexto do PROCON, além dos movimentos argumentativos previstos em Vieira (2003, 2007), emergem ainda movimentos de sustentação específicos desta interação institucional, tais como o argumento de autoridade, a sustentação via senso comum e a evidência legal, argumento com maior força no contexto das audiências investigadas. / The conciliation hearings in PROCON are characterized by dispute of antagonistic points of view between claimant (consumer) and responding (supplier), mediated by the representative of this institution. In this scenario, the conflict of interests between parties depends on an intense discursive negotiation/construction of “versions of the events”. Thus, talk-in-interaction plays a key role in the negotiation, because the whole process of argument is made through it, and depending on the argumentative power of the participants, the negotiation will succeed or not. Given the specificities of this situational context, the objectives of this study are to investigate the argumentative movements (MA, cf. GILLE, 2001) submitted by participants in three PROCON hearings in a city in Minas Gerais, to verify in which phases of the audience they occur and to analyze the framings that guide the participants in relation to what is happening "here and now" in these interactions. The data were recorded on audio and transcripts according to the convention of the conversation analysts (SACKS, SCHEGLOFF and JEFFERSON, 1974), and they belong to the collection of the CNPq Research Group "Language and Society: theoretical and empirical aspects". The research is qualitative and interpretative (ERICKSON, 1986; DENZIN e LINCOLN, 2005) and follows the assumptions of Interactional Sociolinguistics (GOFFMAN, 1974, [1979] 2002). For analysis of argument, we take as a basis Vieira´s argumentative models (2003, 2007), whose components are position, dispute and support (SCHIFFRIN, 1987), categories by which are associated argumentative movements (GILLE, 2001), supporting arguments referenced by literature (GARCIA, 1978) and optional evaluation movements (VIEIRA, 2007). The study results show that, in the context of PROCON, beyond the argumentative movements provided by Vieira (2003, 2007) also emerge specific support movements of this institutional interaction, such as theauthority argument, support via common sense and legal evidence, argument with greater force in the context of the investigated hearings.

Orientador: Léa Maria Strini Velho / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Geociências / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-22T15:19:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Miguel_JeanCarlosHochsprung_M.pdf: 1261008 bytes, checksum: cae693aecb9ec2ccd6416cfffba3af7b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013 / Resumo: Um desafio lançado às sociedades democráticas na atualidade é o de como integrar progressivamente nos processos de tomada de decisão e formulação de políticas o aconselhamento de especialistas. Na medida em que a própria definição de quem é um especialista em determinado assunto já é produto de um arranjo político, a análise desse processo de inclusão torna-se ainda mais importante. Para entender a dinâmica entre as políticas e as expertises, ambientes de discussão como as audiências públicas revelam-se espaços privilegiados de análise. Assim, esta pesquisa tem como objetivo investigar a participação de especialistas em audiências públicas. Como estudo de caso, adotam-se as audiências realizadas pelo Congresso Nacional no período de 2009 a 2012 sobre a reformulação do Código Florestal brasileiro. Fazendo uso dos referenciais analíticos dos Estudos Sociais da Ciência e Tecnologia (ESCT), busca-se "seguir" tomadores de decisão e especialistas em torno dos principais assuntos discutidos. A partir daí, são mapeadas controvérsias e identificadas distintas frentes de interesses formadas por estes atores. Este trabalho, portanto, ao abrir "a caixa preta" das audiências públicas, apresenta um olhar no interior das discussões em um processo de tomada de decisão. Ao demonstrar a contradição entre as diferentes frentes de interesses formadas por tomadores de decisão e especialistas, surge um amplo panorama de conflitos que conjuga saberes e poderes. Nesta pluralidade de conflitos de interesses, vislumbram-se os desafios que surgem àqueles que procuram pensar em um modelo de tomada de decisão que se distancie da tecnocracia ao mesmo tempo em que consiga lidar com a ampliação das discussões públicas em assuntos que exigem o parecer de especialistas / Abstract: A challenge to democratic societies is how integrate the expert advice into the decision making processes and policy formulation. The analysis of the process of expert counseling becomes even more important due to the fact that the definition of who is an expert in a particular topic is already the product of a political arrangement. To understand the dynamics between policies and expertises, the public hearings are privileged spaces for analysis. Thus, this research aims to investigate the participation of specialists in public hearings. The hearings held by the Congress from 2009 to 2012, to discuss and inform the reformulation of the Brazilian Forest Code, are analyzed as a case study. From the standpoint of the Social Studies of Science, this research seeks to "follow" decision makers and experts involved with the main issues discussed. Controversies are mapped and distinct coalitions formed by actors are identified. By opening the "black box" of public hearings, this works presents a look inside the discussions in a process of decision making. By demonstrating the contradiction between the interests of different coalitions formed by decision makers and experts, this study produces a wide view of conflicts that combines knowledge and power. Through the plurality of conflicts of interest are presented the challenges to those who believe in a model of decision making that move away from technocracy while handling the expansion of public discussions on issues that require expert advice / Mestrado / Politica Cientifica e Tecnologica / Mestre em Política Científica e Tecnológica

Court use of web-based videoconferencing software like Zoom to host court hearings grew exponentially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Shifting hearings online has had some benefits—it has reduced travel time for participants and allowed the courts to conduct hearings during government shutdown, for example. There is hope that these video hearings can help courts rectify longstanding access barriers that have made the courts less accessible than they should be to people with limited economic resources, those socially marginalized due to their racial, language, or other group membership, those without attorney representation, and/or those living with disabilities. Yet, prior court technologies like electronic filing have disproportionately benefited those with resources and legal training instead, and early empirical research on video hearings shows a similar trend. This dual-sided relationship between injustice and court communication technology creates a paradox: How can court communication technology support equal access when it creates its own injustices? Communication scholarship offers a fresh perspective to this intractable problem. Drawing on communication technology affordances, software design justice, and political philosopher Amartya Sen’s ideas on injustice-reduction, this dissertation proposes a normative, analytical framework—the Justice Enhancing Communication Technologies (JECT) Framework. The framework provides philosophical grounding for collaborative efforts aimed at re-imagining court technologies alongside the communities that have been harmed by them. The JECT framework consists of five analytical steps tailored towards discovering the just actions courts can take when using communication technologies:1) listening for the manifest injustice, 2) acknowledging and apologizing for the institution’s role in the injustice, 3) understanding the communicative aspects of the injustice, 4) committing to address the injustice, and 5) cooperatively planning, implementing, and evaluating with members of the public. These steps point those dedicated to enhancing court access towards injustice-reducing action. The framework can be used by communication scholars and others that study the courts, court information technology practitioners, judges and court staff that utilize the technologies, court program evaluators, and court diversity, equity, and inclusion consultants. To illustrate how the framework can be utilized, the dissertation applies it to an illustrative, empirical case study of video hearings. / Media & Communication

No description available.

The purpose of this study is to examine American perceptions of Russia as a problem between 2001 and 2021, specifically the perceptions present in the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC). It tries to answer two questions: 1) how the perceptions have developed, and the perceived reasons driving this development, and 2) the differences between Republican and Democratic senators. This is done with a qualitative content analysis of the seven hearings for United States Secretary of State held between 2001, in the beginning of George W. Bush’s presidency, to 2021, the beginning of Joe Biden’s presidency. The study makes use of actor-specific theory and Kaplowitz’ theory on the perception of enemies as its theoretical framework. The result of the study is that the perception has developed from a cautious view of a Russia that is unstable, but not hostile, to one of Russia as actively hostile and problematic. The question of party differences indicates that there are few differences between the two parties other than their view on Donald Trump and his connections to Russia, although this finding is not as conclusive.

The overall goal of this thesis was to highlight different communicative aspects of participation in interpreter-mediated asylum hearings with unaccompanied Russianspeaking children who had applied for asylum in Sweden between 2001 and 2005. Participation in the asylum process is guaranteed to these children by the Swedish Administrative Law and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which are incorporated in the Swedish Aliens Act. The Migration authorities in their work with asylum seeking minors have integrated principles of the best interests of the child and the principle of respecting the children’s views on matters concerning them. In this thesis, we have studied the conditions of participation in a highly complex, hybrid activity type, where participants face contradictory demands. Hybridity can be traced in communicative dilemmas which are difficult to solve and handle for all the participants involved, including the caseworkers, interpreters and children. The caseworkers are expected to control an interview in which whole of the communicative exchange is rendered by interpreters who influence the progress of the encounter. Contradiction lies in the fact that the caseworkers are expected to treat all asylum seekers equally both as a group and individually, by relating to general legal regulations and at the same time, take into account the interests and individual needs of an individual child. It might be difficult for these caseworkers to stay neutral and meet underage clients whose life stories and experiences, conduct and needs differ considerably from what is usually ascribed to children. Asylum seeking children come to Sweden to stay. Our results have shown that they take an active role in their attempts to lead to a positive outcome in their cases. In this respect, children’s testimonies and the impression they make as informants play a salient role. The communicative tasks faced by the adolescents are, however, difficult to achieve. Previous life conditions, vulnerability, psychosomatic problems, and memory and concentration difficulties may affect their performance. Other factors which might further impede these children from achieving their task is the pragmatic and linguistic deficiency, which they experience in a context where they lack communicative means and are not fully aware of the norms and regulations relevant for the encounter. Despite hese limitations, it seems that these minors try hard to shoulder their role as asylum seekers and informants actively and strategically. One strategy chosen by the children was to disclose information selectively. They tried to avoid answering questions which could reveal their age, origin or the whereabouts of their caregivers and thereby enable authorities to establish their identity and send them back. To compensate for their uncooperativeness in this area, the adolescents tended to provide information which had not been asked for. Our studies have shown that children could have been prevented by both the caseworkers and interpreters from expressing their views and opinions in a free and self-chosen way. In this respect, interpreters’ contributions were salient for what information was forwarded to the caseworkers. In some cases, they changed both the language and the format of the responses provided by the children. Some of the communicative strategies which were initiated by the interpreters could be linked to both their professional skills and to the hybridity and the complexity of the situation. Interpreters had difficulties staying neutral in relation to the children and orient them in the encounters. Age differences between the participants could also have an impact on how the children were treated and the respect and importance attributed to their voices. We have identified sequences where interpreters initiated monolingual exchanges with one of the interlocutors where they actively tried to exclude and discredit the children’s voices, something which often happened with the tacit approval of the caseworkers. Thus, it can be seen that communicative premises which are inherent in the asylum hearings influence the participant statuses of the children and their possibilities to express their asylum claims.

Esta pesquisa pretende, no contexto da expansão do protagonismo judicial (principalmente sobre o aspecto da judicialização das políticas públicas), estudar as audiências públicas realizadas pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal e seus efeitos na realização do direito à saúde que, por ser um direito social, se concretiza, principalmente, por meio de políticas públicas. O objetivo é verificar se as audiências públicas realizadas sobre o tema (audiências sobre a judicialização da saúde, sobre o programa Mais Médicos e sobre a internação com diferença de classe no SUS) foram satisfatórias no sentido de serem capazes de criar uma sistemática de atuação para o Poder Judiciário nos casos que envolvem o controle de políticas públicas de saúde. Para tanto, realizamos a análise de obras teóricas sobre a judicialização dos conflitos, o estudo de casos concretos envolvendo a efetivação da saúde e dividimos a dissertação em quatro partes. Na primeira parte (capítulo um), abordaremos os limites metodológicos do direito positivo tradicional no que se refere à efetivação dos direitos sociais, no contexto da expansão do protagonismo judicial e da ascensão do neoconstitucionalismo, apontando como reflexo a estes desafios a institucionalização das audiências públicas. No segundo capítulo trataremos do papel que as audiências públicas assumiram no STF, destacando de forma crítica a apropriação do instituto como um canal de diálogo democrático com a sociedade civil, asseverando que sua utilização é discricionária, pontual e seletiva, atendendo assim, principalmente, a uma busca por maior legitimidade decisória. No terceiro capítulo, tendo em vista as dificuldades inerentes para a efetivação do direito à saúde e o caráter limitado que as audiências públicas assumiram junto à Corte Suprema, analisaremos os efeitos do instituto na criação do que poderíamos chamar de política judiciária de saúde. Por fim, no quarto capítulo, apontaremos para caminhos que visam a superação da lógica compensatória e individualista da aplicação do direito à saúde, por meio da valorização de um verdadeiro diálogo do Judiciário com a sociedade civil, alcançada somente com a realização de audiências públicas verdadeiramente deliberativas. / In the context of the expansion of judicial protagonism (especially on the aspect of judicialization of public policies), this research aims to study the Supreme Court public hearings and the effects on social rights awereness. The goal is to verify if the public hearings regarding \"judicalization of health,\", \"Mais Médicos\" program and \"admission to differences classes in the SUS\", were able to create a pattern of the Judiciary acting in cases involving control of public health policies satisfactorily. The research compreends the analysis of theoretical works on the judicialization of conflicts, case studies involving the effectiveness of health and is divided in four parts. On the first chapter the analysis will be on the methodological limits of traditional positive law, in the context of the expansion of the judicial role and neoconstitutionalism rise. On the second, the analysis will be on the role of the public hearing at the Supreme Court level. The emphases is critically pointing the institute\'s institucionalization as a democratic channel of dialogue with civil society, stressing that its use is discretionary, timely and selective. In the third chapter, given the difficulties inherent to the application of the right to health and the limited nature that the public hearings have taken by the Supreme Court, we will analyze the effects of public hearings in creating what we might call \"judicial policy of health\" . Finally, in the fourth chapter, we will point to ways to overcome the compensatory and individualistic logic of the application of the right to health through the promotion of a true judicial dialogue with civil society.

This research analyzed all available hearings from 2013 to 2015 in a national database of due process hearings regarding placement issues and determinations of the least restrictive environment for individual students with significant disabilities. The main research question was whether parents/guardians and due process hearing officers sought placements for these children with significant disabilities that considered creatively and holistically a range of options rather than just a dialogue between already extant possible programmatic offerings. The research resulted in a description and taxonomy of the types of issues and factors arising in the hearings for students with significant disabilities from 2013 to 2015. This research shows almost no evidence of creative or holistic thinking in these due process decisions, and there was little evidence of parent advocacy for general education classes and creative options for their students with significant disabilities beyond existing offerings. The most unique placements to be found in public school settings for these students were in general education classes. Twenty-four students in this analysis were offered general education classes with their typically achieving peers. In general, though, for this unique group of students with significant disabilities, very few due process hearings could be found to have demonstrated creativity, or the consideration of holistic options, for such students. In general, in due process hearings for students with significant disabilities from 2013 to 2015, parents were overwhelming advocating for, and due process hearing officers were deciding among, options on the continuum of placements already traditionally considered for students with significant disabilities.

No description available.

Prior to the Constitutional Court's decision in the Sidumo and another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and others (2007) lACC 22 the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration applied the "reasonable employer"–test to determine whether a specific sanction, issued by an employer, was fair. The "reasonable employer"–test provided a lot of flexibility to employers to dismiss employees for misconduct, as employers' decisions to dismiss were "protected" from scrutiny by the CCMA. The Constitutional Court replaced the "reasonable employer"–test, which required a measure of deference to the decision of the employer, with that of the "reasonable decision maker"–test, which required an answer to the question whether the decision reached by the commissioner was one that a reasonable decision maker could not reach? This meant that in the event that the decision reached by the commissioner was one that a reasonable decision maker could not reach, that the decision of the commissioner will be overturned on review. The change in test from a "reasonable employer" to that of a "reasonable decision maker" had significant implications for employers who are instituting disciplinary action against their employees and subsequently imposing the sanction of dismissal, as commissioners are no longer allowed to "defer" to the decision imposed by employers. The Sidumo test also have implications for employers who are seeking to take decisions of the CCMA on review, as londo JP held in Fidelity Cash Management Service v CCMA 2008 29 ILJ 964 (LAC) that it will not be often that an arbitration award is found to be one that a reasonable decision maker could not have made. / Thesis (LL.M. (Labour Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.