@misc{Turner2021,
  author    = {Turner, Bryan S.},
  title     = {Book review: Populism in the civil sphere / edited: Jeffrey C. Alexander, Peter Kivisto, Giuseppe Sciortino. - Cambridge ; Medford : Polity, 2021. - ISBN 978-1-5095-4474-5 ; 978-1-5095-4473-8},
  series = {Journal of classical sociology : JCS},
  volume    = {21},
  journal   = {Journal of classical sociology : JCS},
  number    = {3-4},
  publisher = {Sage Publ.},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1468-795X},
  doi       = {10.1177/1468795X21996104},
  pages     = {357 -- 360},
  year      = {2021},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Stehle2021,
  author    = {Stehle, Fee},
  title     = {Rezension zu: Jordan, Andrew; Huitema, Dave; Asselt Harro van; Foster, Johanna (eds.): Governing climate change: polycentricity in action? - Cambridge ; New York, NY ; Port Melbourne : Cambridge University Press, 2018. - xv, 389 S. - ISBN 978-1-108-41812-6},
  series = {Global environmental politics},
  volume    = {21},
  journal   = {Global environmental politics},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {MIT Press},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  issn      = {1536-0091},
  doi       = {10.1162/glep_r_00596},
  pages     = {157 -- 159},
  year      = {2021},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Fuhr2020,
  author    = {Fuhr, Harald},
  title     = {Rezension zu: Geopolitical economy of energy and anvironment : China and the European Union / Hrsg.: Amineh, Mehdi Parvizi ; Yang, Guang. - Leiden: Brill, 2017. - ISBN: 978-90-04-27310-8},
  series = {Comparative sociology},
  volume    = {19},
  journal   = {Comparative sociology},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Brill},
  address   = {Leiden},
  issn      = {1569-1322},
  doi       = {10.1163/15691330-12341522},
  pages     = {151 -- 153},
  year      = {2020},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Turner2018,
  author    = {Turner, Bryan S.},
  title     = {Rezension zu: DeHanas, Daniel Nilsson: London Youth, Religion, and Politics: Engagement and Activism from Brixton to Brick Lane. - Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2016. - ISBN: 978-019874367-5},
  series = {The British Journal of Sociology},
  volume    = {69},
  journal   = {The British Journal of Sociology},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0007-1315},
  doi       = {10.1111/1468-4446.12361},
  pages     = {876 -- 877},
  year      = {2018},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{vanHeldenReichard2018,
  author    = {van Helden, Jan and Reichard, Christoph},
  title     = {Management control and public sector performance management},
  series = {Baltic Journal of Management},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Baltic Journal of Management},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Emerald Group Publishing Limited},
  address   = {Bingley},
  issn      = {1746-5265},
  doi       = {10.1108/BJM-01-2018-0021},
  pages     = {158 -- 176},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether and how evolving ideas about management control (MC) emerge in research about public sector performance management (PSPM). Design/methodology/approach This is a literature review on PSPM research through using a set of key terms derived from a review of recent developments in MC. Findings MC research, originating in the management accounting discipline, is largely disconnected from PSPM research as part of public administration and public management disciplines. Overlaps between MC and PSPM research are visible in a cybernetic control approach, control variety and contingency-based reasoning. Both academic communities share an understanding of certain issues, although under diverging labels, especially enabling controls or, in a more general sense, usable performance controls, horizontal controls and control packaging. Specific MC concepts are valuable for future PSPM research, i.e. trust as a complement of performance-based controls in complex settings, and strategy as a variable in contingency-based studies. Research limitations/implications Breaking the boundaries between two currently remote research disciplines, on the one hand, might dismantle "would-be" innovations in one of these disciplines, and, on the other hand, may provide a fertile soil for mutual transfer of knowledge. A limitation of the authors' review of PSPM research is that it may insufficiently cover research published in the public sector accounting journals, which could be an outlet for MC-inspired PSPM research. Originality/value The paper unravels the "apparent" and "real" differences between MC and PSPM research, and, in doing so, takes the detected "real" differences as a starting point for discussing in what ways PSPM research can benefit from MC achievements.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Hickmann2019,
  author    = {Hickmann, Thomas},
  title     = {Rezension zu: Andonova, Liliana B: Governance Entrepreneurs: International Organizations and the Rise of Global Public-Private Partnerships. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. - XI,275 S. - ISBN 978-1-107-16566-3},
  series = {Global environmental politics},
  volume    = {19},
  journal   = {Global environmental politics},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {MIT Press},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  issn      = {1526-3800},
  doi       = {10.1162/glep_r_00510},
  pages     = {175 -- 177},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Turner2019,
  author    = {Turner, Bryan S.},
  title     = {Time, Science and the Critique of Technological Reason: Essays in Honor of Herminio Martins},
  series = {European Journal of Social Theory},
  volume    = {22},
  journal   = {European Journal of Social Theory},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Sage Publ.},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1368-4310},
  doi       = {10.1177/1368431018824454},
  pages     = {571 -- 574},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{MielkeVermassenEllenbecketal.2016,
  author    = {Mielke, Jahel and Vermassen, Hannah and Ellenbeck, Saskia and Milan, Blanca Fernandez and Jaeger, Carlo},
  title     = {Stakeholder involvement in sustainability science-A critical view},
  series = {Global biogeochemical cycles},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Global biogeochemical cycles},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {2214-6296},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.001},
  pages     = {71 -- 81},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Discussions about the opening of science to society have led to the emergence of new fields such as sustainability science and transformative science. At the same time, the megatrend of stakeholder participation reached the academic world and thus scientific research processes. This challenges the way science is conducted and the tools, methods and theories perceived appropriate. Although researchers involve stakeholders, the scientific community still lacks comprehensive theoretical analysis of the practical processes behind their integration - for example what kind of perceptions scientists have about their roles, their objectives, the knowledge to gather, their understanding of science or the science-policy interface. Our paper addresses this research gap by developing four ideal types of stakeholder involvement in science - the technocratic, the functionalist, the neoliberal-rational and the democratic type. In applying the typology, which is based on literature review, interviews and practical experiences, we identify and discuss three major criticisms raised towards stakeholder involvement in science: the legitimacy of stakeholder claims, the question whether bargaining or deliberation are part of the stakeholder involvement process and the question of the autonomy of science. Thus, the typology helps scientists to better understand the major critical questions that stakeholder involvement raises and enables them to position themselves when conducting their research. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Wenzel2016,
  author    = {Wenzel, Bertolt},
  title     = {Organizing coordination in fisheries and marine environmental management: Patterns of organizational change in Europe},
  series = {Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America},
  volume    = {134},
  journal   = {Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0964-5691},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.10.012},
  pages     = {194 -- 206},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Over the past decade, an increasing number of public organizations involved in marine governance in Europe have adapted their formal coordination structures for fisheries and marine environmental management. This study examines why the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), DG FISH of the European Commission, the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research (IMR), and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) have changed their sectoral structures into organizations with a geographical focus on marine ecosystems. The study finds that the gradual convergence of formal coordination structures for fisheries and marine environmental management is driven by coercive, normative and mimetic processes of isomorphism. The structural changes reflect an organizational adaptation to a changing institutional environment and an Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM) focusing on regional marine areas, cross-sector integration and coordination. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Scheller2015,
  author    = {Scheller, Henrik},
  title     = {Framing Citizen Participation: Participatory Budgeting in France, Germany and the United Kingdom},
  series = {German politics},
  volume    = {24},
  journal   = {German politics},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {0964-4008},
  doi       = {10.1080/09644008.2015.1032511},
  pages     = {210 -- 211},
  year      = {2015},
  language  = {en}
}