@article{HenikeKamprathHoelzle2020,
  author    = {Henike, Tassilo and Kamprath, Martin and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina},
  title     = {Effecting, but effective?},
  series = {Long range planning : LRP ; international journal of strategic management / Strategic Planning Society},
  volume    = {53},
  journal   = {Long range planning : LRP ; international journal of strategic management / Strategic Planning Society},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0024-6301},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101925},
  pages     = {16},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Business model (BM) visualisations have become popular instruments with which to explain and manage today's complex business interactions. Using verbal and graphic elements, they provide simplified representations of reality and can support BM tasks that go beyond working memory's capacities. Visualisations thus reduce cognitive load and represent how practitioners and researchers think about BMs. However, they can also affect their thinking. This constitutes a thus far insufficiently explained tension between effectively reducing reality's complexity and the resulting cognitive biases. Building on cognitive load and framing theory, we qualitatively analysed 103 BM visualisations to explain how visual elements affect visualisations' cognitive effectiveness (helpfulness and ease of applicability) and unfold visual framing effects. By identifying five visual framing effects, we contribute to the cognitive BM perspective and explain how this set of cognitive factors affects BM management and research. We also found that most BM visualisations are not cognitively effective because they consist of unclear and non-parsimonious elements, limiting their cross-contextual application. Furthermore, the analysis revealed certain visualisations with strictly operationalised BM dimensions. These findings provide essential contributions to the literature on BM methods. We conclude by discussing how practitioners and researchers can use BM visualisations and their cognitive impacts accordingly.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Yaka2019,
  author    = {Yaka, {\"O}zge},
  title     = {Gender and framing},
  series = {Women's Studies International Forum},
  volume    = {74},
  journal   = {Women's Studies International Forum},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0277-5395},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.wsif.2019.03.002},
  pages     = {154 -- 161},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Framing literature has so far failed to construct gender as an analytical category that shapes the ways in which we perceive, identify and act upon grievances. This article builds on the insights of feminist theory and employs the conceptual vocabulary of the social movement framing perspective in maintaining gender as a main parameter of framing processes. Drawing on ethnographic research on local community struggles against hydropower plants in the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey, this article maintains the centrality of gender to framing processes. It analyzes the gendered difference between men's macro-framings and women's cultural and socio-ecological framings, which is rooted in their differing relationships with their immediate environment, as well as with the state and its institutions. The article maintains that the framings of women, which represent the immediacy of the environment, are more effective in gaining public support and shaping movement outcomes. In this sense, constructing gender as an important determinant of "frame variation" is essential not only to reveal women's frames that are largely silenced through and within the mechanisms of social movement organization, but also to stress their centrality in shaping repertoires of contention, public reception and movement outcomes.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Lubawinski2012,
  type      = {Master Thesis},
  author    = {Lubawinski, Markus},
  title     = {Paradigmen in der Politik: zwischen Kontinuit{\"a}t und Wandel : zum Verh{\"a}ltnis von parlamentarischem Diskurs und staatlicher Steuerung in der Ausl{\"a}nderpolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1981-2005)},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-67365},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Seit Mitte 1950er Jahre hatten Bundesregierungen immer wieder betont, dass die Bundesrepublik „kein „Einwanderungsland" sei. Das Bekenntnis der Rot-Gr{\"u}nen Koalition zum „Einwanderungsland" und die Reformen im Bereich des Staatsb{\"u}rgerschaftsrechts (1999), des Arbeitsrechts (2000) und der Zuwanderung (2004) markierte daher f{\"u}r viele Experten einen Paradigmawandel in der deutschen Immigrations- und Integrationspolitik. Dieser Wandel ist nie systematisch untersucht worden. F{\"u}r den Zeitraum von 1981 bis 2005 geht die Arbeit auf der Basis einer stichwortbasierten Inhaltsanalyse und eines Gesetzgebungsindexes deshalb den Fragen nach, (1) inwieweit sich Ver{\"a}nderungen in der politischen Zuwanderungsdiskussion in Deutschland am Beispiel des Deutschen Bundestags nachweisen lassen (Diskursebene), (2) inwiefern die gesetzliche Steuerung und Regulierung von Immigration und Integration in dieser Periode von Liberalisierungstendenzen gekennzeichnet war (Policyebene), und (3) in welchem Verh{\"a}ltnis Diskurs und Policy zueinander stehen. Politische, {\"o}konomische und gesellschaftliche Rahmenbedingungen werden dabei ber{\"u}cksichtigt. Theoretisch basiert die Arbeit auf den Annahmen der Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, die etwas ausf{\"u}hrlicher dargestellt und mit den Konzepten Paradigma, Frame und Policywandel verbunden wird.},
  language  = {de}
}