Political Education in Plural Societies: Using the Anti-Bias Approach to Challenge Oppression in Bombay and Berlin

This study addresses the effectivity of the Anti-Bias approach and training methodology as a pedagogical political strategy to challenge oppression among student groups in the cities of Bombay and Berlin. The Anti-Bias trainings conducted within the framework of this study also become the medium through which the perpetuation of oppressive structures by students within and outside the school is investigated. Empirical data from predominantly qualitative investigations in four secondary schools, two each in Bombay and Berlin, is studied and analysed on the basis of theoretical understandings of prejudice, discrimination and identity. This study builds on insights offered by previous research on prejudices and evaluations of anti-bias and diversity interventions, where the lack of sufficient research and thorough evaluations testing impact has been identified (Levy Paluck, 2006). The theoretical framework suggests that prejudices and discriminatory practices are learnt and performed by individuals over the years by way of pre-existing discourses, and that behaviour and practices can be unlearnt through a multi-step process. It proposes that the discursive practices of students contribute to the constitution of their viable selves and in the constitution of ‘others’. Drawing on this framework, the study demonstrates how student-subjects in Bombay and Berlin perpetuate oppressive discourses by performing their identities and performing identities onto ‘others’. Such performative constitution opens up the agency of the individual, disclosing the shifting and dynamic nature of identities. The Anti-Bias approach is posited as an alternative to oppressive discourses and a vehicle that encourages and assists the agency of individuals. The theoretical framework, which brings together a psychological approach to prejudice, a structural approach to discrimination and a poststructural approach to identity, facilitates the analysis of the perpetuation of dominant discourses by the students, as well as how they negotiate their way through familiar norms and discourses. Group discussions and interviews a year after the respective trainings serve to evaluate the agency of the students and the extent to which the training impacted on their perceptions, attitudes and behavioural practices. The study reveals the recurrence of the themes race, religion, gender and sexuality in the representational practices of the students groups in Berlin and Bombay. It demonstrates how students in this study not only perform, but also negotiate and resist oppressive structures. Of particular importance is the role of the school: When schools offer no spaces for discussion, debate and action on contemporary social issues, learning can neither be put into practice nor take on a positive, transformative form. In such cases, agency and resistance is limited and interventionist actions yield little. This study reports the potential of the Anti-Bias approach and training as a tool of political education and action in education. It demonstrates that a single training can initiate change but sustaining change requires long-term strategies and on-going actions. Taking a poststructural perspective, it makes concrete suggestions to adapt and alter the Anti-Bias approach and the implementation of Anti-Bias trainings.

From evolution to co-evolution – An empirical study of the role of innovation, policy and public research in industrial dynamics

In the past decades since Schumpeter’s influential writings economists have pursued research to examine the role of innovation in certain industries on firm as well as on industry level. Researchers describe innovations as the main trigger of industry dynamics, while policy makers argue that research and education are directly linked to economic growth and welfare. Thus, research and education are an important objective of public policy. Firms and public research are regarded as the main actors which are relevant for the creation of new knowledge. This knowledge is finally brought to the market through innovations. What is more, policy makers support innovations. Both actors, i.e. policy makers and researchers, agree that innovation plays a central role but researchers still neglect the role that public policy plays in the field of industrial dynamics. Therefore, the main objective of this work is to learn more about the interdependencies of innovation, policy and public research in industrial dynamics. The overarching research question of this dissertation asks whether it is possible to analyze patterns of industry evolution – from evolution to co-evolution – based on empirical studies of the role of innovation, policy and public research in industrial dynamics. This work starts with a hypothesis-based investigation of traditional approaches of industrial dynamics. Namely, the testing of a basic assumption of the core models of industrial dynamics and the analysis of the evolutionary patterns – though with an industry which is driven by public policy as example. Subsequently it moves to a more explorative approach, investigating co-evolutionary processes. The underlying questions of the research include the following: Do large firms have an advantage because of their size which is attributable to cost spreading? Do firms that plan to grow have more innovations? What role does public policy play for the evolutionary patterns of an industry? Are the same evolutionary patterns observable as those described in the ILC theories? And is it possible to observe regional co-evolutionary processes of science, innovation and industry evolution? Based on two different empirical contexts – namely the laser and the photovoltaic industry – this dissertation tries to answer these questions and combines an evolutionary approach with a co-evolutionary approach. The first chapter starts with an introduction of the topic and the fields this dissertation is based on. The second chapter provides a new test of the Cohen and Klepper (1996) model of cost spreading, which explains the relationship between innovation, firm size and R&D, at the example of the photovoltaic industry in Germany. First, it is analyzed whether the cost spreading mechanism serves as an explanation for size advantages in this industry. This is related to the assumption that the incentives to invest in R&D increase with the ex-ante output. Furthermore, it is investigated whether firms that plan to grow will have more innovative activities. The results indicate that cost spreading serves as an explanation for size advantages in this industry and, furthermore, growth plans lead to higher amount of innovative activities. What is more, the role public policy plays for industry evolution is not finally analyzed in the field of industrial dynamics. In the case of Germany, the introduction of demand inducing policy instruments stimulated market and industry growth. While this policy immediately accelerated market volume, the effect on industry evolution is more ambiguous. Thus, chapter three analyzes this relationship by considering a model of industry evolution, where demand-inducing policies will be discussed as a possible trigger of development. The findings suggest that these instruments can take the same effect as a technical advance to foster the growth of an industry and its shakeout. The fourth chapter explores the regional co-evolution of firm population size, private-sector patenting and public research in the empirical context of German laser research and manufacturing over more than 40 years from the emergence of the industry to the mid-2000s. The qualitative as well as quantitative evidence is suggestive of a co-evolutionary process of mutual interdependence rather than a unidirectional effect of public research on private-sector activities. Chapter five concludes with a summary, the contribution of this work as well as the implications and an outlook of further possible research.