@article{WittenbergSnedeker2014,
  author    = {Wittenberg, Eva and Snedeker, Jesse},
  title     = {It takes two to kiss, but does it take three to give a kiss? Categorization based on thematic roles},
  series = {Language, cognition and neuroscience},
  volume    = {29},
  journal   = {Language, cognition and neuroscience},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {2327-3798},
  doi       = {10.1080/01690965.2013.831918},
  pages     = {635 -- 641},
  year      = {2014},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{GieblerRuthTanneberg2018,
  author    = {Giebler, Heiko and Ruth, Saskia P. and Tanneberg, Dag},
  title     = {Why choice matters},
  series = {Politics and Governance},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Politics and Governance},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Cogitatio Press},
  address   = {Lisbon},
  issn      = {2183-2463},
  doi       = {10.17645/pag.v6i1.1428},
  pages     = {1 -- 10},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Measures of democracy are in high demand. Scientific and public audiences use them to describe political realities and to substantiate causal claims about those realities. This introduction to the thematic issue reviews the history of democracy measurement since the 1950s. It identifies four development phases of the field, which are characterized by three recurrent topics of debate: (1) what is democracy, (2) what is a good measure of democracy, and (3) do our measurements of democracy register real-world developments? As the answers to those questions have been changing over time, the field of democracy measurement has adapted and reached higher levels of theoretical and methodological sophistication. In effect, the challenges facing contemporary social scientists are not only limited to the challenge of constructing a sound index of democracy. Today, they also need a profound understanding of the differences between various measures of democracy and their implications for empirical applications. The introduction outlines how the contributions to this thematic issue help scholars cope with the recurrent issues of conceptualization, measurement, and application, and concludes by identifying avenues for future research.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{GieblerRuthTanneberg2018,
  author    = {Giebler, Heiko and Ruth, Saskia P. and Tanneberg, Dag},
  title     = {Why choice matters},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {104},
  issn      = {1867-5808},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42789},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-427891},
  pages     = {10},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Measures of democracy are in high demand. Scientific and public audiences use them to describe political realities and to substantiate causal claims about those realities. This introduction to the thematic issue reviews the history of democracy measurement since the 1950s. It identifies four development phases of the field, which are characterized by three recurrent topics of debate: (1) what is democracy, (2) what is a good measure of democracy, and (3) do our measurements of democracy register real-world developments? As the answers to those questions have been changing over time, the field of democracy measurement has adapted and reached higher levels of theoretical and methodological sophistication. In effect, the challenges facing contemporary social scientists are not only limited to the challenge of constructing a sound index of democracy. Today, they also need a profound understanding of the differences between various measures of democracy and their implications for empirical applications. The introduction outlines how the contributions to this thematic issue help scholars cope with the recurrent issues of conceptualization, measurement, and application, and concludes by identifying avenues for future research.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BohnKundisch2020,
  author    = {Bohn, Nicolai and Kundisch, Dennis},
  title     = {What are we talking about when we talk about technology pivots?},
  series = {Information \& management},
  volume    = {57},
  journal   = {Information \& management},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {0378-7206},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.im.2020.103319},
  pages     = {20},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Technology pivots were designed to help digital startups make adjustments to the technology underpinning their products and services. While academia and the media make liberal use of the term "technology pivot," they rarely align themselves to Ries' foundational conceptualization. Recent research suggests that a more granulated conceptualization of technology pivots is required. To scientifically derive a comprehensive conceptualization, we conduct a Delphi study with a panel of 38 experts drawn from academia and practice to explore their understanding of "technology pivots." Our study thus makes an important contribution to advance the seminal work by Ries on technology pivots.},
  language  = {en}
}