Scottish and Slovak university student discussions about stigmatized persons: A challenge for education – moving towards democracy and inclusion

• Authors: Jana Plichtová
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The paper compares discussions in 12 groups of university students (6 Slovak and 6 Scottish) equal in sex and age. The participants discussed the same problem - how to control the spread of HIV/AIDS and respect medical confidentiality (MC). Systematic comparisons revealed striking differences between the two national groups. The Scottish discussants were more cooperative than the Slovaks; they devoted more attention to analysing the problem and to creating a shared understanding of it. Although there was a temptation to contravene MC and the individual rights of those infected with HIV in both the Slovak and Scottish groups, only the Scottish discussants came to the conclusion, collaboratively and through argumentative exchange, that such proposals would be counterproductive in controlling the spread of HIV or in protecting public health. In the Slovak groups even participants who were opposed to discriminative proposals were not able to convince their fellow discussants that MC should not be contravened. Links are drawn between the findings and critical pedagogy and inclusion.

Keywords

EN

critical pedagogy and pedagogy of inclusion; small discussion groups; argumentational thinking; stigmatization; HIV/AIDS; medical confidentiality

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Journal of Pedagogy
• Year: 2013
• Volume: 4
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 188-207

Dates

published

2013-12-01

online

2013-12-31

Contributors

author

Jana Plichtová

• Institute for Research in Social Communication, Slovak Academy of Sciences Dúbravská cesta 9 841 04 Bratislava 4 Slovakia

References

• Berecká, O. (1998). Diskurzívne charakteristiky demokracie v malých skupinách [Discursive characteristics of democracy in small groups], unpublished dissertation.Bratislava: Department of Social and Biological Communication, Slovak Academy of Sciences.
• Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodern ethics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Chesny, M., & Smith, A. (1999). Critical delays in testing and care: The potential role of stigma. American Behavior Scientist, 42, 1162-1174.
• Cohen, R. A. (1998). Foreword to E. Levinas: Otherwise than being or beyond essence.Pittsburg: Duquesne University Press.
• Dewey, J. (1916/1961). Democracy and education. New York : The Macmillan Company.
• Dewey, J. (1891/1967). Psychology. In: The early works of John Dewey, vol. 2. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
• Gabel, S. (2002). Some conceptual problems with critical pedagogy. Curriculum Inquiry, 32 (2), 177-201.
• Grootendorst, R., & Van Eemeren, F. H. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
• Jodelet, D. (1989/1991). Madness and social representation [Original title: Folies et Représentations Sociales T. Pownall). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
• Levinas, E. (1961/1995). Totality and infinity. Pittsburg, PA: Duquesne University Press.
• Link, B.G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363-385.
• Link, B.G., & Phelan, J. C. (2006). Stigma and it public health implication. Lancet, 667-529.
• Mahajana, A.P., Saylesc, J. N., Patela, V. A., Remiend, R. H., Sawiresa, S. R., Daniel J. Ortize, D. J., Szekeresa G., & Coatesa, T. J. (2008). Stigma in the HIV/AIDS epidemic: a review of the literature and recommendations for the way forward. AIDS, 22 (suppl 2): 67-S79
• Marková, I., & Farr, R. (Eds.) (1995). Representations of health, illness and handicap.Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.
• Moodie, E., Marková, I., & Plichtová, J.(1995). Lay Representations of Democracy: A Study in Two Cultures. Culture and Psychology, 1, 423-453.
• Plichtová J., & Berecká, O. (1998). Diskusná skupina - “miniatúra mysliacej spoločnosti” [Discussion groups - “a thinking society in miniature”]. Človek a spoločnosť (Internet journal for theory and research in social sciences), 1, 3.
• Plichtová, J., & Berecká, O. (1999). Postoje v argumentatívnom kontexte [Attitudes in arguments]. In: V. Bačová (Ed.), Súčasnosť a perspektívy psychológie. Košice: FF PU, Katedra psychológie.
• Plichtová, J., & Moodie, E. (1998). Proposals, justifications and beliefs in discussion groups: Slovak - Scottish comparison. Paris, 18 - 21 May, European Laboratory of Social Psychology: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
• Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London: Routledge Van Eemeren, F. H. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.
• Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Wodak, R., Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (2009). The discoursive construction of national identity. 2 nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Zápotočná, O., & Lukšík, I. (2010). Modely občianskeho vzdelávania a ich podiel na formovaní aktívneho demokratického občianstva [Models of civic education and how they contribute to the formation of an active, democratic citizenship]. In J. Plichtová (Ed.), Občianstvo, participácia a deliberácia na Slovensku: teória a realita (pp. 313-332).Bratislava: Veda

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/jped-2013-0010