Diss. Uppsala : Uppsala universitet, 2006.

<p>Författaren heter numera Tunefalk.</p>

Internet har förändrat samhället i grunden och har påverkat de flesta områden man kan tänka sig på något sätt. Ett av de påverkade områdena är samhällsvetenskaplig datainsamling. Med hjälp av internet och teknisk apparatur finns det idag fler valmöjligheter vid val av datainsamlingsmetod än någonsin tidigare. Studien undersöker hur internetenkäter fungerar som datainsamlingsmetod inom områdena bortfall, internt bortfall samt ur ett tids- och kostnadsperspektiv. Likt flera tidigare undersökningar av internetbaserade datainsamlingsmetoder jämförs resultaten från en internetenkät med resultaten från en pappersenkät för en population delad i två identiska grupper med en experimentell design. Populationerna som undersöks består av en ung elitgrupp, styrelseledamöter från Sveriges åtta riksdagspartiers ungdomsförbund. Elitpopulationen ger metodologiska fördelar genom att de antas ha större tekniska kunskaper samt större tillgång till internet jämfört med andra populationer vilket ger en unik möjlighet att testa avancerade frågeställningar. Avancerade frågeställningar representeras i denna studie av frågor om sociala nätverk. Studien resulterar i tre rekommendationer att tänka på då internetenkäter ska användas. (i) Det är viktigt att tänka på att målpopulationen har tillgång till och tillräckliga kunskaper om internet för att kunna besvara enkäten. (ii) Det ska vara möjligt att nå populationen via internet. (iii) Undersökningen bör inte vara beroende av avancerade och öppna frågeställningar.

Syftet med denna studie var att undersöka vilken grupp människor som till största del fick komma till tals i webb-programmet Eftersnack. Deltagarna i programmet valde vi att dela in i fyra grupper, män, kvinnor, elitpersoner och personer från allmänheten. Vi undersökte också vilka typer av frågor som reportern ställde till respektive grupp. Vi analyserade om det fanns likheter eller olikheter bland frågorna till de olika grupperna. Av de 15 avsnitt som vi tog med i vår analys fick vi ett resultat som visade att männen fick mer utrymme än kvinnorna i webb-programmet. Av statusgrupperna fick elitpersonerna mest plats i programmet jämfört med personer från allmänheten. Sammanfattningsvis fick manliga elitpersoner mest utrymme i programmet. Frågorna som vi analyserade skilde sig mellan könen och statusgrupperna. Männen och elitpersonerna fick korta och mer kritiska frågor medan kvinnorna och personer från allmänheten fick öppnare och mer vaga frågor. / The purpose of this study was to see which type of persons that got to be heard in the web broadcast of the debate show Eftersnack. We divided the participants into four different groups; women, men, elite persons and members of the public. We also wanted to analyse if there were any differences in the questions asked to the different groups. In the 15 episodes we chose to analyse we found that 60 percent of the participants in the show were men. The elite persons were given more space and time than members of the public. Thus, elite men got most time to say what they wanted to say. We also found that the questions differed depending on who was asked. Men and elite persons had to answer shorter and more critical questions while the women and members of the public were given vague and open questions that were easier to answer.

Diss. Umeå : Umeå universitetet, 2005. / Recension: RIG, 2006:3, s. 161-163.

<p>In modern, Swedish political science there are different ways of looking at ‘democracy’. A very common distinction is that between three groups of democratic theories: electoral democracy, participation democracy and deliberative democracy.</p><p>The nowadays frequently used concept of electoral democracy is often used as synonymous with the older concept of repre­­­­sen­tative or indirect democracy – frequently regarded as a contrast to the direct democracy of ancient Athens. However, there are also important differences. As for elections, people have no other significant role than voting for different political parties. It is a common view among defenders of electoral democracy that ‘ordinary people’ ought not to try to influence politicians between the elections.</p><p>There are mainly two different ways of looking at representative democracy; one stresses the future and focuses on mandates; the other focuses on retrospective accountability.</p><p>The modern concept of electoral democracy has many similarities with Joseph Schumpeter’s elite perspective. The main difference is that modern electoral democrats accept the concept of a ‘popular will’ – a concept that Schumpeter regarded as metaphysical.</p><p>The many meanings of the concept of ‘representation’ are analysed with reference to political scientist Hanna Pitkin, who defines its core character as ‘acting in the interest of the represented, in a manner responsive to them’. Others, like Bernard Manin, regard representative democracy as substantially different from direct democracy. The main difference is the election in contrast to the lot. For Manin, the election is indeed equal and democratic because every person has one and only one vote but at the same time unequal and aristocratic – sometimes even oligarchic – because we usually choose a person who is ‘better’ than the average.</p><p>In the electoral democracy model as well as in Schumpeter’s view, ordinary people need not participate much in the political parties or in the nomination process. The ballot is coming to the voter from the outside – like a stock on the market. For Manin, on the other hand, the nomination process is the central point.</p><p>One conclusion of this analysis is that the so-called electoral model may be regarded as an ideal type, in a Weberian sense. However, there is a risk that the model is interpreted as an ideal in a normative sense, since the concept of electoral democracy not only is narrower and ‘thinner’ than the concept of representative democracy. It is also narrower than the democratic views of Pitkin and Manin. More specifically, using ‘electoral democracy’ synonymously with ‘representative democracy’ may exclude these authors’ understanding of the dynamic mechanisms of the latter’s nomination processes.</p>

In modern, Swedish political science there are different ways of looking at ‘democracy’. A very common distinction is that between three groups of democratic theories: electoral democracy, participation democracy and deliberative democracy. The nowadays frequently used concept of electoral democracy is often used as synonymous with the older concept of repre­­­­sen­tative or indirect democracy – frequently regarded as a contrast to the direct democracy of ancient Athens. However, there are also important differences. As for elections, people have no other significant role than voting for different political parties. It is a common view among defenders of electoral democracy that ‘ordinary people’ ought not to try to influence politicians between the elections. There are mainly two different ways of looking at representative democracy; one stresses the future and focuses on mandates; the other focuses on retrospective accountability. The modern concept of electoral democracy has many similarities with Joseph Schumpeter’s elite perspective. The main difference is that modern electoral democrats accept the concept of a ‘popular will’ – a concept that Schumpeter regarded as metaphysical. The many meanings of the concept of ‘representation’ are analysed with reference to political scientist Hanna Pitkin, who defines its core character as ‘acting in the interest of the represented, in a manner responsive to them’. Others, like Bernard Manin, regard representative democracy as substantially different from direct democracy. The main difference is the election in contrast to the lot. For Manin, the election is indeed equal and democratic because every person has one and only one vote but at the same time unequal and aristocratic – sometimes even oligarchic – because we usually choose a person who is ‘better’ than the average. In the electoral democracy model as well as in Schumpeter’s view, ordinary people need not participate much in the political parties or in the nomination process. The ballot is coming to the voter from the outside – like a stock on the market. For Manin, on the other hand, the nomination process is the central point. One conclusion of this analysis is that the so-called electoral model may be regarded as an ideal type, in a Weberian sense. However, there is a risk that the model is interpreted as an ideal in a normative sense, since the concept of electoral democracy not only is narrower and ‘thinner’ than the concept of representative democracy. It is also narrower than the democratic views of Pitkin and Manin. More specifically, using ‘electoral democracy’ synonymously with ‘representative democracy’ may exclude these authors’ understanding of the dynamic mechanisms of the latter’s nomination processes.

To date, previous discussions of the practise of ”weapon deposition” in prehistoric Scandinavia have focused primarily on the Roman Iron Age. The focus of these investigations have been the large offerings of weapons in bogs, which were presumably taken from enemies defeated in battle. Until recently, these particular kind of ritual practises were thought to have ceased in the middle of the 6th century. It is now widely acknowledged, however, that this sort of ritual practises did not simply dissappear, but instead re-emerged during the Vendel- and Viking age in a changed state. These rites, which are frequently associated with elite groups and so called ”central places” are embodied, for example, in the weapons and other valuable objects deposited in the lake adjacent to the Late Iron Age magnate site at Tissø, Denmark. Similar finds have been recovered in Scania and Gotland, but these practises have not received enough attention compared to other ritual aspects of the Viking Age. This essay therefore aims to investigate the ideologies and motivations underpinning these rites, and provide a reassessment of their possible connection to elites, political and religious centralization, and central places/manorial sites.

A relatively unexplored phenomena of the Nordic Bronze Age is the occurrence where monumental cult houses of stone foundation are discontinued, instead smaller cult houses are constructed in wood. This change occurred during the middle of the Bronze Age, a time werethe Nordic society experienced extensive contact and trade with cultures on mainland Europe. Cult houses were misunderstood for the majority of the 20th Century and it was not until recent they were acknowledged, and this shift noticed. This paper will examine the mentioned change in cult houses with the hypothesis that they were of symbolic importance and use of the elites. It will be discussed whether the cult houses form is attached to the elites display of power and is dependent on a grander ideology in how the elites legitimize their privileged position in society. In essence the paper aims to investigate the two types of cult houses and see to what extent they can be derived to underlying institutions, set up by the elite as a strategy to stay in power.

No description available.