@article{KalleitnerBobzien2023, author = {Kalleitner, Fabian and Bobzien, Licia}, title = {Taxed fairly?}, series = {European sociological review}, volume = {40}, journal = {European sociological review}, number = {3}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0266-7215}, doi = {10.1093/esr/jcad060}, pages = {535 -- 548}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Empirically, the poor are more likely to support increases in the level of tax progressivity than the rich. Such income-stratified tax preferences can result from differences in preferences of what should be taxed as argued by previous literature. However, it may also result from income-stratified perceptions of what is taxed. This paper argues that the rich perceive higher levels of tax progressivity than the poor and that tax perceptions affect individuals' support for progressive taxation. Using data from an Austrian survey experiment, we test this argument in three steps: First, in line with past research, we show that individuals' income positions are connected to individuals' tax preferences as a self-interest rationale would predict. However, second, we show that this variation is mainly driven by income-stratified tax perceptions. Third, randomly informing a subset of the sample about actual tax rates, we find that changing tax perceptions causally affects support for redistributive taxation among those who initially overestimated the level of tax progressivity. Our results indicate that tax perceptions are relevant for forming tax preferences and suggest that individuals are more polarized in their perceptions of who pays how much taxes than in their support for who should pay how much tax.}, language = {en} } @article{Bobzien2023, author = {Bobzien, Licia}, title = {Income inequality and political trust}, series = {Social indicators research}, volume = {169}, journal = {Social indicators research}, number = {1-2}, publisher = {Springer Nature B.V.}, address = {Dordrecht}, issn = {0303-8300}, doi = {10.1007/s11205-023-03168-9}, pages = {505 -- 528}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Political trust—in terms of trust in political institutions—is an important precondition for the functioning and stability of democracy. One widely studied determinant of political trust is income inequality. While the empirical finding that societies with lower levels of income inequality have higher levels of trust is well established, the exact ways in which income inequality affects political trust remain unclear. Past research has shown that individuals oftentimes have biased perceptions of inequality. Considering potentially biased inequality perceptions, I argue that individuals compare their perceptions of inequality to their preference for inequality. If they identify a gap between what they perceive and what they prefer (= fairness gap), they consider their attitudes towards inequality unrepresented. This, in turn, reduces trust in political institutions. Using three waves of the ESS and the ISSP in a cross-country perspective, I find that (1) perceiving a larger fairness gap is associated with lower levels of political trust; (2) the fairness gap mediates the link between actual inequality and political trust; and (3) disaggregating the fairness gap measure, political trust is more strongly linked to variation in inequality perceptions than to variation in inequality preferences. This indicates that inequality perceptions are an important factor shaping trust into political institutions.}, language = {en} } @article{Mitsch2023, author = {Mitsch, Wolfgang}, title = {Die „Vorpr{\"u}fung" beim Versuch in der Fallbearbeitung}, series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r das juristische Studium}, journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r das juristische Studium}, number = {4}, publisher = {T. Rotsch}, address = {Gießen}, issn = {1865-6331}, pages = {729 -- 736}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Der Beitrag behandelt eine Marginalie der strafrechtlichen Fallbearbeitung, die "Vorpr{\"u}fung" bei der Er{\"o}rterung von Versuchsstrafbarkeit. Fehler sind hier selten, kommen aber in der Universit{\"a}ts- und Examensrealit{\"a}t vor. Zu ihrer Vermeidung gibt der vorliegende Beitrag einige Ratschl{\"a}ge und Hinweise.}, language = {de} } @article{BaumgartBoosEckstein2023, author = {Baumgart, Lene and Boos, Pauline and Eckstein, Bernd}, title = {Datafication and algorithmic contingency}, series = {Work organisation, labour \& globalisation}, volume = {17}, journal = {Work organisation, labour \& globalisation}, number = {1}, publisher = {Pluto Journals}, address = {London}, issn = {1745-641X}, doi = {10.13169/workorgalaboglob.17.1.0061}, pages = {61 -- 73}, year = {2023}, abstract = {In the context of persistent images of self-perpetuated technologies, we discuss the interplay of digital technologies and organisational dynamics against the backdrop of systems theory. Building on the case of an international corporation that, during an agile reorganisation, introduced an AI-based personnel management platform, we show how technical systems produce a form of algorithmic contingency that subsequently leads to the emergence of formal and informal interaction systems. Using the concept of datafication, we explain how these interactions are barriers to the self-perpetuation of data-based decision-making, making it possible to take into consideration further decision factors and complementing the output of the platform. The research was carried out within the scope of the research project 'Organisational Implications of Digitalisation: The Development of (Post-)Bureaucratic Organisational Structures in the Context of Digital Transformation' funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).}, language = {en} } @article{BaumgartMuster2023, author = {Baumgart, Lene and Muster, Judith}, title = {Organization not found}, series = {Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift f{\"u}r angewandte Organisationspsychologie}, volume = {54}, journal = {Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift f{\"u}r angewandte Organisationspsychologie}, number = {2}, publisher = {Springer VS}, address = {Wiesbaden}, issn = {2366-6145}, doi = {10.1007/s11612-023-00681-w}, pages = {177 -- 185}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Der Beitrag in der Zeitschrift GIO besch{\"a}ftigt sich mit der Frage nach den Schwierigkeiten von Digitalisierungsreformen in {\"o}ffentlichen Verwaltungen. Der Blick wird daf{\"u}r auf Verwaltungen als Organisationen gerichtet, deren formale Strukturen die Digitalisierungsreform erschweren, da steile Hierarchien und Dienstwegeregelungen mit netzwerkartigen Projektstrukturen konfligieren, agile Arbeitsweisen der Orientierung an rechtlich legitimierten Verfahren zuwiderlaufen und das Personal nicht mit den n{\"o}tigen Kompetenzen ausgestattet wird. Der organisationssensible Fokus erlaubt es, nicht nur die Probleme der Strukturen zu betrachten, sondern auch deren Funktionen f{\"u}r den Systembestand von Verwaltungen zu ber{\"u}cksichtigen. So wird gezeigt, dass etwa Dienstwegeregelungen demokratische Prozesse gew{\"a}hrleisten und Verantwortungsdiffusion verhindern, ihre Rechtsorientierung den Verwaltungen Legitimation und Autonomie verschafft und das Personal durch seine Regeleinhaltung funktionierende Verfahren und Objektivit{\"a}t gew{\"a}hrleistet. Diese Spannungsfelder ber{\"u}cksichtigend, wird daher der Vorschlag gemacht, in Reformen nicht nur ihre Optimierungsfunktion zu sehen, sondern sie als Werkzeug f{\"u}r ein besseres Verst{\"a}ndnis der vorherrschenden Strukturen zu nutzen. Der Beitrag gibt abschließend Fragen an die Hand, wie man sich diesem Verst{\"a}ndnis n{\"a}hern kann.}, language = {de} } @article{SohstAcostamadiedoTjaden2023, author = {Sohst, Rhea Ravenna and Acostamadiedo, Eduardo and Tjaden, Jasper}, title = {Reducing uncertainty in Delphi surveys}, series = {Demographic research}, volume = {49}, journal = {Demographic research}, publisher = {Max Planck Inst. for Demographic Research}, address = {Rostock}, issn = {2363-7064}, doi = {10.4054/DemRes.2023.49.36}, pages = {983 -- 1020}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Background: Following the rapid increase of asylum seekers arriving in the European Union in 2015/16, policymakers have invested heavily in improving their foresight and forecasting capabilities. A common method to elicit expert predictions are Delphi surveys. This approach has attracted concern in the literature, given the high uncertainty in experts' predictions. However, there exists limited guidance on specific design choices for future-related Delphi surveys. Objective: We test whether or not small adjustments to the Delphi survey can increase certainty (i.e., reduce variation) in expert predictions on immigration to the EU in 2030. Methods: Based on a two-round Delphi survey with 178 migration experts, we compare variation and subjective confidence in expert predictions and assess whether additional context information (type of migration flow, sociopolitical context) promotes convergence among experts (i.e., less variation) and confidence in their own estimates. Results: We find that additional context information does not reduce variation and does not increase confidence in expert predictions on migration. Conclusions: The results reaffirm recent concerns regarding the limited scope for reducing uncertainty by manipulating the survey setup. Persistent uncertainty may be a result of the complexity of migration processes and limited agreement among migration experts regarding key drivers. Contribution: We caution policymakers and academics on the use of Delphi surveys for eliciting expert predictions on immigration, even when conducted based on a large pool of experts and using specific scenarios. The potential of alternative approaches such as prediction markets should be further explored.}, language = {en} } @article{Baumgart2023, author = {Baumgart, Lene}, title = {New work - old problem?}, series = {Organisationsberatung, Supervision, Coaching}, volume = {30}, journal = {Organisationsberatung, Supervision, Coaching}, number = {2}, publisher = {Springer VS}, address = {Wiesbaden}, issn = {1618-808X}, doi = {10.1007/s11613-023-00811-9}, pages = {181 -- 194}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Die Nutzung digitaler Kollaborationstools wird als Vorausset- zung f{\"u}r eine postb{\"u}rokratische New Work-Welt erachtet. Organisationale Digita- lisierungsprojekte zur Einf{\"u}hrung solcher Kollaborationssoftware sind selbst post- b{\"u}rokratisch strukturiert, d. h. sie arbeiten in crossfunktionalen und selbstorgani- sierten Teams. W{\"a}hrend der Kooperation mit anderen Organisationseinheiten treten Konflikte auf, die sich dadurch versch{\"a}rfen, dass sie nicht von der Hierarchie ge- l{\"o}st werden k{\"o}nnen, sondern im Sinne von New Work demokratisch ausgehandelt werden m{\"u}ssen. In der Folge bedarf es alternativer formaler Strukturen, die diese Herausforderung bew{\"a}ltigen.}, language = {de} } @article{BaumgartBoosBraunsmann2023, author = {Baumgart, Lene and Boos, Pauline and Braunsmann, Katharina}, title = {A circulatory loop}, series = {Social inclusion}, volume = {11}, journal = {Social inclusion}, number = {4}, publisher = {Cogitatio Press}, address = {Lisbon}, issn = {2183-2803}, doi = {10.17645/si.v11i4.7056}, pages = {160 -- 171}, year = {2023}, abstract = {In the digitalization debate, gender biases in digital technologies play a significant role because of their potential for social exclusion and inequality. It is therefore remarkable that organizations as drivers of digitalization and as places for social integration have been widely overlooked so far. Simultaneously, gender biases and digitalization have structurally immanent connections to organizations. Therefore, a look at the reciprocal relationship between organizations, digitalization, and gender is needed. The article provides answers to the question of whether and how organizations (re)produce, reinforce, or diminish gender-specific inequalities during their digital transformations. On the one hand, gender inequalities emerge when organizations use post-bureaucratic concepts through digitalization. On the other hand, gender inequalities are reproduced when organizations either program or implement digital technologies and fail to establish control structures that prevent gender biases. This article shows that digitalization can act as a catalyst for inequality-producing mechanisms, but also has the potential to mitigate inequalities. We argue that organizations must be considered when discussing the potential of exclusion through digitalization.}, language = {en} } @article{Rothermel2023, author = {Rothermel, Ann-Kathrin}, title = {The role of evidence-based misogyny in antifeminist online communities of the 'manosphere'}, series = {Big data \& society}, volume = {10}, journal = {Big data \& society}, number = {1}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {Thousand Oaks, Calif.}, issn = {2053-9517}, doi = {10.1177/20539517221145671}, pages = {1}, year = {2023}, abstract = {In recent years, there have been a growing number of online and offline attacks linked to a loosely connected network of misogynist and antifeminist online communities called 'the manosphere'. Since 2016, the ideas spread among and by groups of the manosphere have also become more closely aligned with those of other Far-Right online networks. In this commentary, I explore the role of what I term 'evidence-based misogyny' for mobilization and radicalization into the antifeminist and misogynist subcultures of the manosphere. Evidence-based misogyny is a discursive strategy, whereby members of the manosphere refer to (and misinterpret) knowledge in the form of statistics, studies, news items and pop-culture and mimic accepted methods of knowledge presentation to support their essentializing, polarizing views about gender relations in society. Evidence-based misogyny is a core aspect for manosphere-related mobilization as it provides a false sense of authority and forges a collective identity, which is framed as a supposed 'alternative' to mainstream gender knowledge. Due to its core function to justify and confirm the misogynist sentiments of users, evidence-based misogyny serves as connector between the manosphere and both mainstream conservative as well as other Far-Right and conspiratorial discourses.}, language = {en} } @article{Kay2023, author = {Kay, Alex James}, title = {Never again?}, volume = {4}, number = {April 2023}, publisher = {Prospect Publishing Limited}, address = {London}, issn = {1359-5024}, pages = {63 -- 65}, year = {2023}, abstract = {The Holocaust was the most terrible atrocity of the 20th century. In many ways, it was also unprecedented in the history of atrocities: for its comprehensiveness and systematic nature; for the fanaticism with which its perpetrators scoured an entire continent in their pursuit of Jews; for the awful potency of the Nazis' insinuation that the victims represented a pernicious and existential threat. Collectively, we have spent decades—and published millions of words—trying to understand what happened and why.}, language = {en} }