Night shifts result in a high pressure on employees' health. Regarding air traffic control, they may also represent a safety issue. Research showed that cognitive performance is decreased at night (Monk 1996) and safety risks increase starting from the second working hour without a break (Folkard et al. 2005). Investigating a request to extend the middle part of a night shift due to little traffic, different break patterns are compared in terms of avoiding health and safety issues. 189 air traffic controllers (ATCOs) from the Eurocontrol Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre in the Netherlands were tested during night shifts lasting for 7.5 hours. During the night shift, two teams, each consisting of two air traffic controllers, were working: While one team was on break, the other took over. They were assigned to three break patterns, with four or five hours of break or a split of the night shift. Each team was tested three times during normal operation. They estimated their subjective sleepiness using a subjective measure, the Stanford Sleepiness Scale, and filled in an objective measure, the d2, to measure attention. Furthermore, one measurement took place during a regular day shift in order to control the night shift data. Results show that five hours of working without a break does not have a negative impact on attention compared to the two other work-break patterns. External validity is given, since the study was conducted during normal operation. However, it was not possible to control and evaluate all confounding variables, as this would have disturbed the ongoing safe working processes of the scheduled shifts. Therefore, future research that examines individual differences in attention and considers the different activities during the breaks of the ATCOs still needs to be conducted in order to clearly identify an optimal break pattern for night shifts.
Erfahrungszentrierte Lehrmethoden haben es an der Universität nicht leicht: Wo bleibt der intellektuelle Höhenflug, wo der theoretische Anspruch, wo die analytische Tiefe? Gewiss - man kann auch OE auf die traditionelle Art lehren, indem man anhand von Literatur in die verschiedenen theoretischen Ansätze einführt und die «Praxis» mittels Fallbeispielen hereinholt und analysiert. Seit vielen Jahren lehren wir OE jedoch mit einem erfahrungszentrierten Ansatz anhand einer Organisationssimulation. Die Studierenden erleben dabei Organisationsprozesse leibhaftig, reflektieren ihre Erfahrungen und Beobachtungen und analysieren sie anschliessend mittels theoretischer Konzepte. Fällt das Lernen auf diese Weise leichter? Werden die Erkenntnisse müheloser gewonnen?
We intend this paper to be read as an
inter-text between selected FQS articles, which in
one way or another engage in the identity politics
of qualitative research, and the broader discussion
of quality in the social sciences. Subjecting those
texts to a discursive investigation, we highlight how
the semantic scope of what is called "qualitative
research" is decisively delimited by the positivist
associations of "good research". Our overall aim is
to take issue with two binaries that are commonly
employed by qualitative researchers and thus
collide with the evolution of creative/aesthetic
science. Simultaneously, however, we seek to enliven
qualitative research by providing an (ancient
and thus marginal) understanding of research and
of approaches that are still outside the prevailing
canon. To this end, we start by investigating the
binary between quantitative and qualitative research
that is perpetually reified as our colleagues
invoke the positivist quality criteria, subordinating
the qualitative pole to an inferior position. Second,
we provide examples of the ways that qualitative
research is habitually separated from "nonresearch"
such as the arts, journalism and fiction,
ostensibly to justify calling it "scientific". Pondering
how these binaries endow qualitative research with
a limited identity and a supplementary status, we
draw on some postmodern works so as to elaborate
on alternative understandings of "science" and
scientific quality. Finally, we argue for a "politics of
difference" which we envision as a point of origin
for extending qualitative research by multiplying its
genres, styles and tropes.
