International students (ISs) are important actors in higher education institutions (HEI) as
they bring diversity, status and revenue. However, ISs stories of acculturative stress in HEI
have remained untold in the current research. While there have been quantitative attempts
to understand the links of such stress to negative symptoms affecting ISs, the current
literature fails to address the emic aspects, origins, and occurrence of such symptoms. In
response to this oversight, this paper presents the results of an ethnographic study
spearheaded by an international student sensitive to these acculturative stressors at a large
land grant institution in the Southwestern United States. Based on field observations and
semi-structured interviews, this article contributes to the literature by addressing existing
gaps in three main ways. First, by providing insight on how sources of acculturative stress
are produced. Second, by allowing for increased understanding of the prevalence of
resulting symptoms. Finally, it provides insightful implications for HEI.

This article reports the author's experience of working in telesales. Through a call center, the case study company sells home improvements. The article describes the everyday organizational life of the telesales unit. Using this autoethnographic experience, the article analyses the organization of work-time in call centers. In particular, the article probes how commission constitutes a form of piece-wage. This piece-wage assists the manipulation of working hours. It does so by masking their extension. To understand this, the article appliesthe conceptual tools of Marx’sCapital. Marx directs attention to how
capitalists organise time in the pursuit of surplus-value. The autoethnographic account explores the application of this to call-center work. Flexible working arrangements and zero-hour contracts extend work-time. A pay framework based around commission and performance-linked piece-wages conceals this.In the case study, there is an absence of technology as productivity-raising measure or means of control. This challenges existing Foucauldian approaches to call-center work. It suggests that traditional forms of capitalist domination-the contract, the wage, time organization- are highly relevant to the call-center context.

This paper explores the concept of dominance in traditional rural and remote island
communities in the Zadar island archipelago in Croatia. Like their EU counterparts, these
communities struggle with geographical remoteness; island depopulation, irregular ferry
connections, lack of entrepreneurship, unemployment and poverty. A previous study
captured a complex web of communal relationships that play a part in minimising these
negative effects on the island communities’ lives. This study focuses on studying one such
behaviour - dominance and, thus, is concerned with two questions: How does dominance
reveals itself, and what is its significance in practice? A conceptual and methodological
approach consisting of living acts in Roman Ingarden’s spirit, ethnography, deconstruction
and storytelling becomes a tool for observing the rural island communities’ experiences. In
the process, the approach undergoes a qualitative metamorphosis – it co-exists and coevolves so to help us to better understand how island life unfolds. Findings show that
dominance reveals itself as rada, signifying the approach of bonding the members into the
island community. Rada in this sense symbolizes Deleuze’s weapon against the
governmental economisation. To engage and support the needs of the island communities,
it is vital to understand how they make informal decisions, and studying local communal
practices in this sense, has practical implications for the policy makers with the
responsibility for small island development.

When doing any kind of ethnography we are always confronted with questions of power
and domination. In this article the problem is dealt with through an analysis of the debate
between Gadamer and Habermas. In the late 1960es and the early 1970es they exchanged a
series of essays and articles where they discussed the status of power and domination in
relation to understanding (hermeneutics) in particular and to the social sciences in general.
I will use some of the arguments from this debate and confront them with the an
ethnographic method called the conceptualising method (Henriksen et al, 2004), as I find
that the role of power and domination discussed in this ancient debate also counts for the
conceptualising method in particular and in any ethnography in general.