Vad säger statistik om arbetslöshet? : En analys av den offentliga debattenom arbetslösheten i Sverige inför valet 2005

This essay examines the public debate concerning the unemployment of Sweden just before the general election 2005. Its main purpose is to analyse what lies behind the huge differences in statistics, as presented by the two leading factions in the debate. It concludes that these differences are foremost a problem of semantics, and that although the two factions have statistical proof of their claims, it is their use of terminology that is in fact their main weapon in the debate.The key word here is the swedish word for employment – sysselsättning – which the two facitons use in entirely different ways, creating a lot of possabilities for interpretation. This has caused a type of debate which is actually about the reinterpretation this word, and those who are to be included in the statistics as being “sysselsatt”, therefore, it is semantics that affects the number of unemployed people in the statistics.

Hur eller Varför? : Kunskap i sociokulturellt eller existentialistiskt perspektiv? En kritisk betraktelse

This essay set out to propose a problematic interpretation of the socio-cultural perspective on learning. Its purpose is to show how the socio-cultural perspective on learning defines the concept of knowledge in an incomplete way. The aim becomes then that of giving a more comprehensive description of this concept, and, to this end, to construct a new, broader pedagogic discourse. The investigation starts with a deconstructive analysis of Roger Säljö’s socio-cultural text in order to point out the incompleteness of the concept of knowledge. The constructive part of the analysis proceeds using Heidegger’s and Sartre’s philosophical theories which take a general approach on human learning and on human knowledge as dependent on intuition. A dichotomy of two new concepts related to knowledge is thus defined: how-knowledge and why-knowledge. This reconceptualisation of the concept of knowledge allows a reinterpretation of any act of knowledge in a structural way. Hence any act of knowledge includes a moment (a) which defines the initial contextual (conceptual or practical) situation; a moment (b) which represents an algorithm, a procedure, or a theory; and a moment (c) which represents the result of the act, and is the direct application of knowledge as a finalized entity. Knowledge inbuilt in (a) and (c) is characterized as how-knowledge, while that in (b) is characterized as why-knowledge. In a learning situation a focus on how-knowledge implies finality and objectification of students. Conversely, why-knowledge implies students becoming subjects of their own learning.