@article{GholiaghaHolzscheiterLiese2020,
  author    = {Gholiagha, Sassan and Holzscheiter, Anna and Liese, Andrea},
  title     = {Activating norm collisions},
  series = {Global constitutionalism},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Global constitutionalism},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  issn      = {2045-3817},
  doi       = {10.1017/S2045381719000388},
  pages     = {290 -- 317},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {This article puts forward a constructivist-interpretivist approach to interface conflicts that emphasises how international actors articulate and problematise norm collisions in discursive and social interactions. Our approach is decidedly agency-oriented and follows the Special Issue's interest in how interface conflicts play out at the micro-level. The article advances several theoretical and methodological propositions on how to identify norm collisions and the conditions under which they become the subject of international debate. Our argument on norm collisions, understood as situations in which actors perceive two norms as incompatible with each other, is threefold. First, we claim that agency matters to the analysis of the emergence, dynamics, management, and effects of norm collisions in international politics. Second, we propose to differentiate between dormant (subjectively perceived) and open norm collisions (intersubjectively shared). Third, we contend that the transition from dormant to open - which we term activation - depends on the existence of certain scope conditions concerning norm quality as well as changes in power structures and actor constellations. Empirically, we study norm collisions in the area of international drug control, presenting the field as one that contains several cases of dormant and open norm collisions, including those that constitute interface conflicts. For our in-depth analysis we have chosen the international discourse on coca leaf chewing. With this case, we not only seek to demonstrate the usefulness of our constructivist-interpretivist approach but also aim to explain under which conditions dormant norm collisions evolve into open collisions and even into interface conflicts.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{VerwiebeKittelDellingeretal.2019,
  author    = {Verwiebe, Roland and Kittel, Bernhard and Dellinger, Fanny and Liebhart, Christina and Schiestl, David and Haindorfer, Raimund and Liedl, Bernd},
  title     = {Finding your way into employment against all odds?},
  series = {Journal of ethnic and migration studies},
  volume    = {45},
  journal   = {Journal of ethnic and migration studies},
  number    = {9},
  publisher = {Routledge},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1369-183X},
  doi       = {10.1080/1369183X.2018.1552826},
  pages     = {1401 -- 1418},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Labour market entry poses enormous challenges for recently arrived refugees, ranging from language barriers, devaluation of human capital, unfamiliarity with customs of the job search process to outright discrimination. How can refugees overcome these challenges and quickly enter gainful employment? In this paper, we draw on interviews with 26 male and female refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, conducted in 2017 and 2018, who came to Austria in 2015 and 2014 and who have successfully entered employment. We depict refugees' own perspectives on and strategies for fast job entry and integration. Personal agency and a proactive approach of seeking and seizing opportunities are key for overcoming initial barriers and entering upon positive integration pathways. At the same time, refugees' personal agency is essential for establishing social ties to the host society, which also play a crucial role in early labour market integration. Finally, institutions of the Austrian labour market (the 'apprenticeship'-system) interact with refugees' agency in most intricate ways, both setting up nearly insurmountable barriers but also providing specific opportunities for refugees.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Ungelenk2018,
  author    = {Ungelenk, Johannes},
  title     = {Lesend Responsiv-Werden mit Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak},
  series = {Widerst{\"a}ndige Theorie : Kritisches Lesen und Schreiben},
  journal   = {Widerst{\"a}ndige Theorie : Kritisches Lesen und Schreiben},
  publisher = {Neofelis},
  address   = {Berlin},
  isbn      = {978-3-95808-265-6},
  pages     = {245 -- 252},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {"'Es mag unrealistisch klingen, aber ich k{\"o}nnte nicht l{\"a}nger in den Humanities unterrichten, wenn ich nicht daran glauben w{\"u}rde, dass am New Yorker Ende - das metonymisch f{\"u}r das verteilende Ende als solches steht - die Lehrende versuchen kann, W{\"u}nsche unerzwungen neu anzuordnen, n{\"a}mlich durch den Versuch, bei der Studierenden die Gewohnheit literarischen Lesens oder auch einfach nur „Lesens" zu entwickeln, bei dem man sich selbst in den Text des Anderen aussetzt [suspending]. Die erste Voraussetzung und zugleich Folge w{\"a}re ein Aussetzen [suspension] der {\"U}berzeugung, dass ich selbst zwangsl{\"a}ufig besser bin, zwangsl{\"a}ufig unentbehrlich bin, zwangsl{\"a}ufig diejenige bin, die Unrecht richtet, zwangsl{\"a}ufig das Endprodukt bin, um dessentwillen Geschichte geschah, und schließlich, dass New York zwangsl{\"a}ufig die Hauptstadt der Welt ist.' Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak schreibt diese Worte f{\"u}r die prestigetr{\"a}chtige Oxford Amnesty Lecture Series „Human Rights, Human Wrongs" - und es ist kein Zufall, dass gerade dieser Anlass Spivak herausfordert, explizit wie selten ihre Grundhaltung zu exponieren. Als eine der meistrezipierten Pionierinnen der postcolonial theory zu internationalem Ansehen gekommen wird Spivak nun eine komplizierte Ehre zuteil: Sie ist an einen Ort geladen, der sich - im ‚besten' (neo-)kolonialen Verst{\"a}ndnis - noch immer gerne als ein intellektuelles Zentrum der Welt betrachtet - und soll sprechen. ..."},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{StenzelDolkColzatoetal.2014,
  author    = {Stenzel, Anna and Dolk, Thomas and Colzato, Lorenza S. and Sellaro, Roberta and Hommel, Bernhard and Liepelt, Roman},
  title     = {The joint Simon effect depends on perceived agency, but not intentionality, of the alternative action},
  series = {Frontiers in human neuroscienc},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Frontiers in human neuroscienc},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1662-5161},
  doi       = {10.3389/fnhum.2014.00595},
  pages     = {10},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {A co-actor's intentionality has been suggested to be a key modulating factor for joint action effects like the joint Simon effect (JSE). However, in previous studies intentionality has often been confounded with agency defined as perceiving the initiator of an action as being the causal source of the action. The aim of the present study was to disentangle the role of agency and intentionality as modulating factors of the JSE. In Experiment 1, participants performed a joint go/nogo Simon task next to a co-actor who either intentionally controlled a response button with own finger movements (agency+/intentionality+) or who passively placed the hand on a response button that moved up and down on its own as triggered by computer signals (agency-/intentionality-). In Experiment 2, we included a condition in which participants believed that the co-actor intentionally controlled the response button with a Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) while placing the response finger clearly besides the response button, so that the causal relationship between agent and action effect was perceptually disrupted (agency-/intentionality+). As a control condition, the response button was computer controlled while the co-actor placed the response finger besides the response button (agency-/intentionality-). Experiment 1 showed that the JSE is present with an intentional co-actor and causality between co-actor and action effect, but absent with an unintentional co-actor and a lack of causality between co-actor and action effect. Experiment 2 showed that the JSE is absent with an intentional co-actor, but no causality between co-actor and action effect. Our findings indicate an important role of the co-actor's agency for the JSE. They also suggest that the attribution of agency has a strong perceptual basis.},
  language  = {en}
}