English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Police training and learning settings focusing on physical conflict management skills regularly comprise at least two parties: on the one side the individuals learning and developing their conflict management skills and on the other side the individuals in charge of planning and delivering the training sessions. While the first category refers to learners, the latter category is referred to, among others, as instructor, trainer, coach, sifu or professor, depending on contextual constraints. While it seems arbitrary to use different terms for describing the learner's counterpart in a learning setting, we argue for a sensible consideration of manifest and latent implications of how these individuals are referred to - and how they perceive their role. Drawing from autoethnographic data in various conflict management training settings, we identify functional, dysfunctional and irritating aspects of different terms used. By reflecting through the lenses of functionality from a systemic perspective, we aim at providing insights towards a more nuanced understanding of contextual constraints and reflexive use of these terms.

nbp. nauka, bezbednost, policija

Instructor, trainer, sifu, coach or professor: Reflections on the use of terminology in police learning settings dealing with physical conflict management