ProDisG: Professionalism in the focus of discourse-analytical examinations of group discussions - 'references to family' as an integral part of discursive gendering of professional acting under situational and supersituative conditions of statements. (fol

ProDisG是一项话语分析研究，它调查了KiTas和SPFH团队在小组讨论中产生的发言，使用了一个新开发的模型，用于小组讨论的话语分析，该模型来自“专业主义和性别的新秩序”项目。从对比的角度对专业人士的陈述进行话语分析”（2016年9月- 2018年9月）。它考察了小组讨论中所作陈述的情境和叠加条件如何形成对家庭的引用。这被认为是一种中心话语实践，构成了“专业行动”作为一种性别化的知识对象；展示了在历史的不连续性和改变的教育和福利政策的背景下，如何将这些领域（重新）排序为“性别化的职业”。作为后续项目，ProDisG使用了方法论模型，这是项目的核心里程碑之一，已在NeO中成功开发。该模型使得从话语理论的角度来思考和分析小组讨论成为可能（与教育话语研究的最新发展相一致）。小组讨论中陈述的情境和叠加条件被概念化为作为实践的话语的构成要素，构成了陈述行为中知识的客体和主体：“为什么在这一点上，这个陈述出现了，而不是其他的？”ProDisG使用与上述两个行动领域的小组讨论的笔录，以及其他材料的语料库，其中包括观察协议、方法学文件，如给各机构的信，以及各机构的概念文件。因此，对小组讨论中的陈述进行分析的话语分析程序现在得到了充分的实现，并在方法上得到了批判性的反思。指导性问题是：话语分析过程可以产生哪些见解？在实践分析中，启发式方法论的哪些可能性和局限性是显而易见的？在不同层次和类型的材料的复杂相互联系中，分析步骤是如何工作的？在早期教育和SPFH领域，陈述的情境和叠加条件经验地揭示了使“提及家庭”成为专业行动的话语性别化的组成部分？

ProDisG is a discourse-analytical study that investigates speaker statements from KiTas and SPFH teams about their work generated in group discussions using a newly developed model for discourse analysis of group discussions from the the project "NeO - (New) Orders of Professionalism and Gender. Discourse-analytical examination of the statements of professionals in a contrastive perspective"(term 09/2016-09/2018). It examines how situational and supersituative conditions of statements made in group discussions form references to family. This has been identified as a central discursive practise constituting ‘professional action’ as a gendered object of knowledge; showing how (re)ordering these fields as 'gendered professions' currently takes place in the context of historical dis/continuities and changed educational and welfare policies. As a follow-up project, ProDisG uses the methodological model, one of the central milestones of the project, which has been successfully developed in NeO. The model makes it possible to think and analyse group discussions from the perspective of discourse theory (in accordance with recent developments in educational discourse research). Situational and supersituative conditions of statements made in group discussions are conceptualized as constitutive elements of discourse as practises, constituting the objects and subjects of knowledge in the act of doing statements: ‘How is it that at this point this statement appears and not others?’ ProDisG use transcripts of group discussion with teams from the two aforementioned fields of action plus a corpus of further material, which includes observation protocols, methodological documents such as letters to the institutions, and the institutions’ concept papers. Thus, the discourse-analytical procedure for the analysis of the statements in group discussions is now fully realized and methodologically critically reflected upon. The guiding questions are: Which insights can be produced with the discourse-analytical procedure? Which possibilities and limits of the methodological heuristic are evident in the practical analysis? How do the analytical steps work in the complex interlinking of different levels and types of material? What situational and supersituative conditions of statements empirically reveal which make 'references to family' an integral part of discursive gendering of professional action in the fields of early education and SPFH?