It's time for a short update. The last discussion was very unsatisfactory, but in the end I got some very nice feedback from the grumpy professor and two tips that were just right for the first paper. There was also a short exchange in the group and two apologies, and we'll do better in the next discussion exam. But more about that later.

The paper was supposed to be between 3 and 4 pages and I used every last line of it. I even found it very exciting in the end, because what I didn't know when I wrote my discussion paper, which was also supposed to come from the work environment, was that it would be the basis for the paper. In the end, I went through with it thematically as reported in my last contribution. After a brief introduction to basic security for people who are able to work and the health and social effects of sanctions, I first went into Foucault and his remarks on the social responsibility to support people in need. It is very exciting when you have to transfer a health discourse to the social security system. I then raised the question of whether this social obligation is not in conflict with sanctions and then justified this on the basis of Turner's theory of the person and what constitutes a person. What one thinks of sanctions and Hartz IV is up to the individual, but I found it extremely exciting to derive this from a social-scientific-sociological-historical perspective and was surprised at the end how logical this mechanism based on this is and how far back the roots for such mechanisms go, because I ended up with King Solomon. But that would lead too far here.

After that, there were a total of six articles to read this week, and after the first half of the module dealt with theories and concepts of gender, power and knowledge, the focus is now on the field of research of integrative health science. The articles varied in length, and I have to say that with the graduation ceremony and an empty tablet when I left for Bremen, my investment was limited. I took a bit of a gamble and had to decide whether I could and wanted to continue in this format. 

On Thursday, the second discussion exam began. The formal eight groups have now become four groups of eight people. Since the amount of reading of the articles was really manageable and there were exactly six questions (one for each article) and one had to make a well-founded contribution to a total of three questions, I honestly expected the whole thing to run a bit more briskly now. BUT, what can I say, today we have Monday almost over, the exam goes offline Wednesday at 23:59 and so far, it is again fellow student X and I who are discussing it alone. But it's exciting for that. I've decided to discuss Bourdieu's habitus theory with a focus on why habits are so hard to change, what can be learned from a critical look at AIDS campaigns in the 80s/90s in the UK for health promotion in general and whether an integrative health care approach is utopian. So it remains exciting. And on Thursday I have the last exam, the final paper. I will have two weeks for that. After that, there's another week's break and then the next module begins. 

I hope that my books will arrive in time. I got them all as pdf files from a dear fellow student, but sometimes I still need paper. Unfortunately, one of the books is not cheaper second-hand than new, but oh well. But today I got a bargain at Thalia and got it for 20 euros less than the second-hand price, because the wholesaler had it cheaper (I love non-priced items) than Thalia does on its own website. 

Otherwise, I feel a bit better at least. In fact, in the last week I haven't thought at least once a day about throwing everything away and studying health economics. Now I'm curious to see what the next module will be like. Oh, and there was already the first grade. But that's relatively easy for me now, because the hkr uses the old Swedish academic grading system, which consists of three grades

VG = väl godkänd (well passed and something with 1.0 to 1.7)

 G = godkänd (passed and something with 2.0 to 4.0)

 U = underkänd (failed and clearly 5.0)

In discussions, there is only G or U (actually, I think it's a bit of a pity, because you have to be really stupid to fail, but two of my group did in the last round). Accordingly, I also got a G. I'm still waiting for the grade from the first paper, which should actually come any day now. Oh, and the grumpy professor must have just had a bad day, because right after I sent in my paper I was asked whether I was Canadian or German and he sent a few nice words. I also find it interesting that I immediately see the plagiarism check. But I'll report on that next time and show you what it looks like. Well, Canvas and I and discussions are a love-hate relationship.