Capturing change: Doing research in a society undergoing transformation

Systematic review and synthesis methods have gained wide acceptance within the social sciences and, as a result, many postgraduate students now consider using them for their thesis or dissertation research. However, students are rarely aware of all the concrete implications that their decision entails. This reflective narrative reports the experience of a political science student who began to conduct a systematic review as part of his Ph.D. dissertation but who did not complete it. The aim of this article is to identify challenges and lessons learned from this experience and to formulate recommendations for postgraduate students who wish to make an informed choice with respect to the use of these methods.     

Is tolerance to shiftwork predictable from individual difference measures?

Abstract

This study was aimed at evaluating the most important relations between individual characteristics of shiftworkers and their subjective health complaints, obtained by cross-sectional and longitudinal procedures. A total of 604 shiftworkers and 185 young subjects who were going to enter shiftwork were examined by means of individual difference and subjective health questionnaires. The questionnaires were administered concurrently to the group of workers already involved in shiftwork. In the other group studied, the questionnaires were administered before they entered shiftwork, and subjective health was re-examined after the first and third year of work on shifts. More health complaints were reported by the group of older workers and those with longer shiftwork experience, with higher scores of neuroticism, hard-driving and competitiveness, speed and impatience, and rigidity of sleeping habits, and lower scores on relaxedness, efficiency and vigorousness. However, the correlations between these dimensions, when taken before entering shiftwork, and subjective health complaints obtained after a few years working on shifts were small or absent, indicating low validity of the individual difference measures for predicting subsequent health problems in shiftworkers.     

Serb Returnees in Croatia – the Question of Return Sustainability1

The authors report on representative field research dealing with ethnic Serb returnees to Croatia. The total sample consisted of 1,500 randomly chosen persons from a population of 120,000 officially registered Serb returnees to Croatia. The main questionnaire was answered by 403 respondents. Drawing on references relating to the concept of sustainability, they further develop it through differentiation of seven sustainability aspects or dimensions: safety; socio‐demographic structure of returnees; socio‐economic conditions of return; refugee experiences; citizenship and minority rights; and subjective perceptions of sustainability. According to field findings, between 35 and 45 per cent of the registered returnees reside permanently at the addresses they reported upon return, and an additional 3,5 per cent moved to other locations within Croatia. At the same time, between 35 and 42 per cent actually reside in their refugee countries (mostly in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina). Some 6 per cent of returnees occasionally stay in Croatia and occasionally outside of it. The interviewers were unable to get any reliable information regarding permanent stay for 15 per cent of the people from the sample. Finally, 11 per cent of them have, in the meantime, passed away since registered return started in 1996. The research results confirm the prevailing impression that Serb returnees are predominantly old people. The average age of all interviewed family members is around 51. The findings and conceptualization suggest the need for a differentiated approach to a returnee body to better understand the complexity of a return. First, we have to distinguish among refugees potential returnees from non‐returnees (political and economic ones). Returnees themselves can then be grouped into several types: I) unconditional permanent; II) conditional permanent; III) semi‐returnees or trans‐national; IV) non‐formal and V) formal or quasi‐returnees.     

Could Refugees Have a Significant Impact on the Future Demographic Change of Serbia?

Serbia still hosts the largest number of forced migrants in Europe. The paper examines the impact of the refugee influx from newly formed states on the territory of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) into Serbia on the future demographic trends of the country. Examination of the past population projections of Serbia confirmed that the process of predicting migration flows is related to the greatest source of uncertainty compared to all other components of demographic change. The results of our projection of Serbia’s population through 2050 show that the large influx of refugees during the last decade of the 20th century should not have a significant impact on the future demographic change of Serbia. Even in the case of substantial improvement of total fertility rate (2.35 in final projection year, comparing to current 1.55), no positive demographic effect should be experienced. Continuation of the decline in Serbia’s total population size cannot be offset by recent refugee influx for several reasons. The most important of them are: too small number of migrants comparing to the total population size of Serbia; similarity in fertility behaviour between refugee and indigenous population; the large‐scaled emigration during the same period; much older refugee population compared to emigrant population; and the processes of refugee repatriation and resettlement. A purely hypothetical projection variant assuming the migration required to maintain the size of current total population size of Serbia until 2050 points out the need for almost three times the amount of average annual migration surplus caused by the refugee influx.     

Gendering the Bone: The Politics of Memory in Bosnia and Herzegovina1

This article explores and intervenes in the deadlock produced by the identifications of bodily remains resulting from genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Every day, in that country, bodily remains are exhumed, counted, reassociated, managed and consecrated as ethnic remains. This is done through the strategic collaboration of forensic science; multiculturalist post‐conflict management, with its politics of reconciliation; and religious ritual — an uncouth alliance between the scientist, the bureaucrat and the priest. In doing so, the scientist, the bureaucrat and the priest assume the perspective of the perpetrator of the crime. For it is in the fantasy of the perpetrator that the executed person is an ethnic other. The article intervenes by posing the question: what different praxis could deactivate the reification of bones as ethnic victims, would stop the prolongation of the injurious gaze of the perpetrator and would return the bones to common use through which we can contemplate hope after genocide? In other words, what is the politics that will enable us to be hopeful subjects in relation to these bones? Drawing on cultural production in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the article both challenges and goes beyond current mainstream political choices. Thus, it identifies and strengthens hopeful politics in cultural‐as‐political practices that productively bear witness to the precariousness of life. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is mainly women artists who harness traumatic events and the loss of the past and present in order to announce a more hopeful politics. What this hopeful politics after genocide is, through what praxis is it enacted, and by which subjects are the main concerns of this article.     

Battling the Eighth Stage: Incrimination of Genocide Denial in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Abstract

Denial is considered to be the eighth and the final stage of genocide. Facing this issue, many European Union countries have opted to incriminate genocide denial. Furthermore, with the aim of harmonising national legislations, Framework Decision No. 2008/913/JHA was adopted in 2008, obliging the Member States to incriminate “publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes”. Genocide and other crimes denial is still present in Bosnia and Herzegovina, even though the rulings of the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, have shown that genocide was committed over Bosnian Muslims, in July 1995 in Srebrenica and its surrounding areas, as well as other numerous crimes against humanity and war crimes across entire Bosnia and Herzegovina. From 2007 there have been a number of attempts to incriminate genocide denial at the state level in Bosnia, but all of them were unsuccessful due to the opposition by representatives of Republika Srpska. Finally, in 2014, the genocide denial was incriminated in the Criminal Code of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an act of encouraging “national, racial and religious hatred, rift and intolerance”.