著者
板倉 有紀
出版者
東北社会学研究会
雑誌
社会学研究 (ISSN:05597099)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.101, pp.115-139, 2018-03-28 (Released:2021-12-01)
参考文献数
13

本稿の目的は、災害時の応急対策期におけるニーズ把握の実践を主とした被災者支援の経験が、保健師と地域社会や地域住民との関わり方の再評価に対して、どのような影響を与えているのかを、退職保健師の活動事例から検討することである。岩手県大槌町では、退職保健師が住民のニーズ把握のため、ボランティアでの災害対応を行った。これは異例であり退職保健師が行政の後ろ盾のないまま活動するのは困難である。 徳島県では退職保健師を県が組織化し「プラチナ保健師」制度を設立した。この制度は、東日本大震災の際に宮城県に派遣された経験をふまえて、地域のことをよく知っている現職の保健師が統括的な立場にいる必要があり、退職保健師は現職の保健師が活動しやすいように後方支援的な立場を担うと良いのではないかという考えのもと設立された。ここで再評価されているのは地区担当制と呼ばれる保健師の活動体制である。現況では保健師の活動体制は実質的な業務分担制が主であり、地域や地区の住民と関わったり関係機関を調整したりする経験が減少している。徳島県プラチナ保健師制度は、この課題意識が東日本大震災をきっかけに具体化され、平常時からの退職保健師と現職の保健師との連携を目指す制度である。
著者
板倉 有紀
出版者
東北社会学研究会
雑誌
社会学研究 (ISSN:05597099)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.98, pp.115-135, 2016-05-30 (Released:2021-12-29)
参考文献数
21

リスクに関連した社会的行為を理解し考察するさいに、行為者の、例えば母親であるという社会的属性や、女性であるという社会的属性が、個々の事例においてどのように関連しているのかを問うことは、「リスクの社会学」にとっても一つの課題であると考えられる。本稿では、リスクに関連する行為と個人の問題に焦点を当てる。まず本特集のテーマでもある「ウルリッヒ・ベックの社会理論」におけるリスクと知識と個人の問題について考察する。次に個人の社会的属性と、リスクに関連した行為との結びつきという観点を検討するべく、「災害と女性」に関する経験的事例として「女性の視点」という言い方について検討する。まとめとして、リスクをめぐる社会的行為と個人の社会的属性の結びつきという視角に立つことが、リスク問題におけるどのような経験的事実に切り込む可能性があるのかをルーマンの議論もふまえつつ論じたい。
著者
倉科 一希
出版者
一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会
雑誌
国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.2021, no.204, pp.204_1-204_16, 2021-03-31 (Released:2022-03-31)
参考文献数
55

How do alliance partners treat the problem of credibility of extended deterrence when they understand seriousness of security threats differently? Do they continue negotiations on the measures to confirm credibility? If so, why? To study this problem, this paper examines US policies toward nuclear sharing when France challenged NATO and shook US-European relations since World War II.France withdrew from the military organization of NATO when nuclear sharing and the stationing costs of the US/British troops on the European continent also troubled the alliance. The administration of Lyndon B. Johnson treated them as parts of a large problem. Washington also tried to solve these related problems through closer cooperation of the United States, the British, and the West Germans. This tripartitism (or trilateralism) was the basic framework through which the Johnson administration considered the ways to deal with individual problems in NATO.Nuclear sharing was not only a part of tripartitism but also a means to promote it. At least by the end of 1964, the respective US governments regarded nuclear sharing as the major way to secure credibility of extended deterrence and, as a result, to hold the alliance together. This attitude changed, however, by the beginning of 1966 when the Johnson administration seriously studied the France-NATO problem and the troop stationing costs. By constructing a nuclear consultation mechanism based on US-UK-FRG cooperation, Washington expected to introduce tripartitism into NATO.The problem of the US/British troop stationing costs grew tense in the middle of the same year. The Johnson administration tried to persuade Bonn to bear more costs of these costs, and this burden-sharing was expected to be a part of tripartitism. Washington tried to introduce a burden-sharing mechanism into NATO in face of the French challenge. President Johnson particularly considered a deal with Bonn over nuclear sharing and the troop costs problem, and this became clear in unofficial US-Soviet talks over the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Johnson insisted on sustaining the possibility of a common strategic nuclear force despite Soviet rejection of any common strategic nuclear force with FRG participation. Here Johnson expected to open this option of a common nuclear force to encourage Bonn’s acceptance of larger burden to support US/British forces.This paper shows that a nuclear sharing measure played a role in inter-allies’ negotiations even though its prime purpose, securing credibility of US extended deterrence, grew less relevant. This perspective could enhance our understanding of nuclear issues under a less tense international situation.

1 0 0 0 OA 追悼

著者
板倉 聖宣 菊池 俊彦
出版者
日本科学史学会
雑誌
科学史研究 (ISSN:21887535)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.31, no.181, pp.51-54, 1992 (Released:2021-04-07)
著者
中村 邦光 板倉 聖宣
出版者
日本科学史学会
雑誌
科学史研究 (ISSN:21887535)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.30, no.178, pp.107-119, 1991 (Released:2021-08-27)

According to the present investigation, it is found that Japanese "physical books" which discussed the essence of heat hnd disaffirmed the "material theory of heat" since 1872 (Meiji 5) and those books supporting the "kinetic theory of heat" had become predominant and been diffused rapidly. Authors did not think so earlier. They expected that there were fairly a lot confusions between traditional thoughts in Japan or the "material theory of heat" and the "kinetic theory of heat". It is shown, however, as a result of the investigation that the shift from the "material theory of heat" to the "kinetic theory of heat" had proceeded smoothly and rapidly. In this context, authors cannot help being struck with wonder by the fact that the acceptance of European science in early years of Meij in Japan was done quite neatly as a "thorough imitaion".
著者
中村 邦光 板倉 聖宣
出版者
日本科学史学会
雑誌
科学史研究 (ISSN:21887535)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.22, no.148, pp.193-205, 1983 (Released:2021-09-24)

In our last paper titled "The Value of Pi in the Edo Period" (Kagakusi Kenkyu, No.143, 1982. pp. 142-152), we did an exhaustive review of the books of native mathematics of Japan published in the Bunsei Era (1818-1830), and showed that these books could be divided into two types according to the two pi values (i.e. 3.14... and 3.16...) they respectively adopted. Specifically, the relatively advanced books of mathematics adopted 3.14..., while the value of 3.16... was generally used in popular booklets of the Jinkoki type and the like. It had been more than 150 years since Muramatsu correctly demonstrated the pi value of 3.14... in his Sanso published in 1663, but a considerable number of books still adopted 3.16... as the pi value in our period of study. Then, the next question would be how the correct value of 3.14... demonstrated by Muramatsu was handed down to the mathematicians of the Edo Period and disseminated. We carried our study a step further in this direction and tried to clarify the adoption process. As a result of our extensive research and analysis, we believe that we have successfully traced the adoption process of 3.14... instead of 3.16... as the value of pi. Among the various issues treated in this paper, the following points would be of particular interest. 1. After Muramatsu's Sanso (published in March,1663), the first book with 3.14... as the value of pi was Nozawa's Dȏkaishȏ (dated August, 1663 in the preface and published in November,1664), the interval between these books is less than two years. 2. Among the books of mathematics published during the ten years between 1663 and 1673, every one of those with 3.14... as the value of pi made an intentionnal alteration to the value adopted by its predecessor, such as 3.14 (→3.1404)→3.142→3.1416. This phenomenon had some connection with thebmovement to take over the traditional unsolved problems and it continued up to Miyake's Guȏ-sampȏ (published in 1699), in which the value of pi was further changed from 3.1416 to 3.141593. There were even a few cases of alteration from 3.142 to 3.14. 3. With the publication of Zȏho-sampȏ-ketsugishȏ (1684), Zohȏ-shimpenjinkȏki (1686) and Kaizanki-Kȏmoku (1687), the value of pi in the three most widely-read books of native mathematics in the Edo Era, Jinkȏki, Kaizanki and Sampȏ-Ketsugishȏ was altered from 3.16... to 3.14... 4. Upon examining all the books of native mathematics published between 1681 and 1690, we found that there was only one book (i.e. Kambara's Sankanki published in 1685) that had not altered the value of pi to 3.14.... and still used 3.16... All the remaining ten books adopted the value of 3.14... Once having attained this stage, how did it come about that the popular books of native mathematics fell back to the value of pi of 3.16... without any apparent hesitation ? A report, on this issue is now in preparation.