Institutes
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (62)
- Book (28)
- Doctoral Thesis (26)
- Master's Thesis (8)
- Working Paper (7)
- Contribution to a Periodical (6)
- Preprint (5)
- Review (5)
- Bachelor Thesis (2)
- Part of Periodical (2)
Language
- English (77)
- German (74)
- Portuguese (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (152)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (152)
Keywords
- Globalisierung (5)
- Globalization (4)
- Pierre Bourdieu (4)
- climate change (4)
- gender (4)
- China (3)
- Finance (3)
- Global Financial Class (3)
- Globale Finanzklasse (3)
- Transnational Capitalist Class (3)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (152)
- Präsidium (29)
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (5)
- Rechtswissenschaft (3)
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (2)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (2)
- Biochemie, Chemie und Pharmazie (1)
- Biowissenschaften (1)
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (1)
- Foundation of Law and Finance (1)
Methoden
(2020)
Rezension zu: Akremi, Leila, Nina Baur, Hubert Knoblauch und Boris Traue (Hrsg.): Handbuch Interpretativ forschen. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Juventa 2018. 961 Seiten. ISBN: 978-3-7799-3126-3. Preis: C 49,95.
This essay explores the problem of legitimation crises in deliberative systems. For some time now, theorists of deliberative democracy have started to embrace a “systemic approach.” But if deliberative democracy is to be understood in the context of a system of multiple moving parts, then we must confront the possibility that that system’s dynamics may admit of breakdowns, contradictions, and tendencies toward crisis. Yet such crisis potentials remain largely unexplored in deliberative theory. The present article works toward rectifying this lacuna, using the 2016 Brexit and Trump votes as examples of a particular kind of “legitimation crisis” that results in a sequence of failures in the deliberative system. Drawing on recent work of Rainer Forst, I identify this particular kind of legitimation crisis as a “justification crisis.”
Psychotherapists in mental health institutions as a professional group are part of the medical system, and from this perspective, as representing an occupation that serves the public health interests, as well as those of the individual seeking help. Despite the different existing therapeutic approaches and diverse forms of therapy deriving from these approaches critical theories, however, consider psychotherapy as a profession with a specific jurisdictional claim and own highly specific interests. In contrast to most of the recent discussion around therapy culture, in this article, I argue that sociology and social theory could benefit from an understanding of psychotherapy as a profession with a separate logic and claim for jurisdiction for mental health. Moreover, I present some general trends showing that, regarding psychotherapy, we face a concurrence of a professionalisation, and simultaneously, an already ongoing deprofessionalisation. To develop my argument, I first discuss the perspectives of sociology of the psychotherapy professions. Second, I present the potential lack of professionalism in four dimensions. Third, I discuss possible tendencies of deprofessionalisation. Finally, I conclude by pointing out the importance of theorising the psychotherapy professions for medical sociology.
Voting advice applications (VAAs) are online tools providing voting advice to their users. This voting advice is based on the match between the answers of the user and the answers of several political parties to a common questionnaire on political attitudes. To visualize this match, VAAs use a wide array of visualisations, most popular of which are the two-dimensional political maps. These maps show the position of both the political parties and the user in the political landscape, allowing the user to understand both their own position and their relation to the political parties. To construct these maps, VAAs require scales that represent the main underlying dimensions of the political space. This makes the correct construction of these scales important if the VAA aims to provide accurate and helpful voting advice. This paper presents three criteria that assess if a VAA achieves this aim. To illustrate their usefulness, these three criteria—unidimensionality, reliability and quality—are used to assess the scales in the cross-national EUVox VAA, a VAA designed for the European Parliament elections of 2014. Using techniques from Mokken scaling analysis and categorical principal component analysis to capture the metrics, I find that most scales show low unidimensionality and reliability. Moreover, even while designers can—and sometimes do—use certain techniques to improve their scales, these improvements are rarely enough to overcome all of the problems regarding unidimensionality, reliability and quality. This leaves certain problems for the designers of VAAs and designers of similar type online surveys.
Das Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht verankert rechtlich Vorstellungen über Zugehörigkeit und bestimmt wer vollumfängliche Rechte in einer Gesellschaft hat und wer nicht. Jahrzehntelang wurde Migration in Deutschland als etwas temporäres betrachtet. Im Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht galt bis zur Reform 1999/2000 weitgehend das „ius sanguinis“, das Abstammungsrecht, das auf einem rassistischen und völkischen Staatsverständnis beruht. Diese Reform bedeutete somit mehr als eine reine Gesetzesänderung. Sie war eine Anerkennung Deutschlands als Einwanderungsland und die Veränderung der Vorstellung deutscher Identität. Als Reaktion entbrannte infolge der Reformpläne eine hitzige, rassistische Debatte in der Öffentlichkeit über ebendiese Fragen, die unter dem polarisierten Schlagwort „Doppelpass“ verhandelt wurde. Es war die lauteste migrationspolitische Debatte dieser Zeit.
Kurze Zeit vor Beginn dieser Debatte war die rechtsterroristische Gruppe „Nationalsozialistischer Untergrund“ (NSU) abgetaucht, um einem Haftbefehl zu entgehen. Der NSU war ein deutsches, neonazistisches Netzwerk, in dessen Mittelpunkt drei Terrorist*innen standen. Sie verübten über einen Zeitraum von zwölf Jahren eine rassistische Mordserie an neun Personen türkischer, kurdischer und griechischer Herkunft sowie drei Sprengstoffanschläge auf migrantische Orte und ermordeten eine Polizistin. Den ersten ihrer Sprengstoffanschläge begingen sie nur einen Monat nach der Unterzeichnung der Reform. Wenige Monate nach dem Inkrafttreten des Gesetzes begannen sie mit dem Anschlag auf Enver Şimşek ihre rassistische Mordserie.
Diese Arbeit untersucht anhand der Struktur der Historisch-Materialistischen Politikanalyse das Migrationsregime um die Staatsangehörigkeitsreform von 1999/2000 und wie der NSU darin verortet werden kann.
Die Kontextanalyse stellt auf der Grundlage einer Literaturrecherche die relevanten historischen und strukturellen Faktoren der Debatte sowie des NSU dar. Im nächsten Schritt werden mithilfe einer Analyse von Zeitungsartikel aus dieser Zeit die relevanten Akteur*innen identifiziert und in die vier Hegemonieprojekte neoliberal, sozial, linksliberal-alternativ und konservativ gruppiert. Darauffolgend wird der Ablauf der Debatte in vier Phasen darstellt und als Aushandlung der vier Hegemonieprojekte rekonstruiert. Dabei zeigt sich, dass kein Projekt sich vollumfänglich durchsetzen und Hegemonie erreichen konnte, sie jedoch unterschiedlich stark in den Medien repräsentiert wurden.
Im letzten Schritt betrachtet diese Arbeit Verbindungen dieser Migrationsregime-Analyse zum NSU. Sie kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass der NSU kein Akteur im Migrationsregime um die Staatsangehörigkeitsdebatte von 1998/99 war. Aufgrund der geringen Erkenntnisse über spezifische Meinungen des NSU zum Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht, können keine kausalen Beziehungen hergestellt werden. Dennoch zeigt diese Arbeit Gemeinsamkeiten in den Weltbildern, Annahmen und migrationspolitischen Zielen des NSU, des konservativen Hegemonieprojektes sowie Teilen der Bevölkerung auf. Dadurch wird ein Beitrag dazu geleistet den NSU als Produkt und Teil der deutschen Gesellschaft zu begreifen.
Within the last decades, western democracies have experienced a rise of inequality, with the gap between lower and upper class citizens steadily increasing and a widespread sentiment of growing inequalities also in the political sphere. Against this background, and in the context of the current “crisis of democracy”, democratic innovations such as direct democratic instruments are discussed as a very popular means to bring citizens back in. However, research on direct democracy has produced rather inconsistent results with regard to the question of which effects referenda and initiatives have on equality. Studies in this field are often limited to single countries and certain aspects of equality. Moreover, most existing studies look at the mere availability of direct democratic instruments instead of actual bills that are put to a vote. This paper aims to take a first step to fill these gaps by giving an explorative overview of the outputs of direct democratic bills on multiple equality dimensions, analyzing all national referenda and initiatives in European democracies between 1990 and 2015. How many pro- and contra-equality bills have been put to a vote, how many of those succeeded at the ballot, and are there differences between country groups? Our findings show that a majority of direct democratic bills was not related to equality at all. Regarding the successful bills, we detect some regional differences along with the general tendency that there are more pro- than contra-equality bills. Our paper sheds new light on the question if direct democracy can serve as an appropriate means to complement representative democracy and to shape democratic institutions in the future. The potential of direct democracy in fostering or impeding equality should be an important criterion for the assessment of claims to extend decision-making by citizens.
The notion that democracy is a system is ever present in democratic theory. However, what it means to think systemically about democracy (as opposed to what it means for a political system to be democratic) is under-elaborated. This article sets out a meta-level framework for thinking systemically about democracy, built upon seven conceptual building blocks, which we term (1) functions, (2) norms, (3) practices, (4) actors, (5) arenas, (6) levels, and (7) interactions. This enables us to systematically structure the debate on democratic systems, highlighting the commonalities and differences between systems approaches, their omissions, and the key questions that remain to be answered. It also enables us to push the debate forward both by demonstrating how a full consideration of all seven building blocks would address issues with existing approaches and by introducing new conceptual clarifications within those building blocks.
What does it mean to design democratic innovation from a deliberative systems perspective? The demand of the deliberative systems approach that we turn from the single forum towards the broader system has largely been embraced by those interested in designing institutions for citizen participation. Nevertheless, there has been no analysis of the practical implications for democratic innovation. Is it possible to design differentiated but interconnected participatory and deliberative settings? Does this better connect democratic innovations to mass politics? Does it promote greater legitimacy? This article analyses one such attempt to design a systems-oriented democratic innovation: the ambitious NHS Citizen initiative. Our analysis demonstrates, while NHS Citizen pioneered some cutting-edge participatory design, it ultimately failed to resolve (and in some cases exacerbated) well-known obstacles to institutionalisation as well as generating new challenges. To effectively realise democratic renewal and reform, systems-oriented democratic innovation must evolve strategies to meet these challenges.
Visuals can be effective tools for educating an audience about peacebuilding and the need to engage with a nation's violent past. However, research on visuality has pointed to the ambivalence visuals can develop through audiencing and the dominant political discourse. Building on this, this article argues that ambivalence can also occur between narratives by different media although the same institution produced them, and that such inherent contradictions can limit the institution's effectiveness. The analysis centers upon a case study of the East Timorese Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR) that compares the commission's documentary dalan ba dame (“road to peace”) with its final report about peace and the human rights violations committed in the territory between 1975 and 1999. While the commission's final report stresses the individual responsibility of members of the Indonesian military and formulates the need for an institution-based liberal peace, the documentary communicates the message that all parties to the conflict are guilty of committing crimes and that peace has already been created, mitigating the need to further engage with the violent past. The analysis identifies the media's different formats and their different agendas as reasons for the creation of these contradicting messages. Based on an assessment of the dissemination of both media and their reception within the political discourse in Timor-Leste, the implications of these conflicting narratives for educating an international audience are discussed. Since the final report is difficult to access due to its length and its legal language, the documentary remains the more accessible medium to educate an international audience about the nation's violent past. However, due to the narrative it conveys, the documentary's ability to mobilize an international audience is limited. Thus, the article argues for considering three aspects when designing visuals for peace education: the intermediality of visuals with other media and its potential effects concerning the communication of a specific message, the reception of the message by the target audience, and the reception of the message by broader audiences when the visual is distributed online.
Dass Emotionen den Subjekten eine wichtige Orientierungshilfe in jeglichen Situationen des Alltags bieten, gilt innerhalb der soziologischen Emotionsforschung mittlerweile als Allgemeingut. Was allerdings, wenn uns unsere Gefühle im Stich lassen, da sie nicht klar eingeordnet oder expliziert werden können? Was also, wenn widersprüchliche Emotionen Zweifel nähren, uns an Entscheidungen hadern lassen oder gar Entscheidungen verunmöglichen? Die hieraus resultierenden Unsicherheiten und sich daran anschließenden Handlungsprobleme sind Gegenstand des Buches. Neben Strategien des Umgangs mit emotionalen Ambivalenzerfahrungen stehen auch die individuellen Lösungswege im Mittelpunk der Analyse.