@phdthesis{Brase2019,
  author    = {Brase, Alexa Kristin},
  title     = {Spiele um Studium und Lehre? Zur mikropolitischen Nutzung von Qualit{\"a}tsmanagementsystemen an Hochschulen in Deutschland},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43737},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-437377},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {IX, 228},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Die Wissenschaftsfreiheit ist ein Grundrecht, dessen Sinn und Auslegung im Rahmen von Reformen des Hochschulsystems nicht nur der Justiz, sondern auch der Wissenschaft selbst immer wieder Anlass zur Diskussion geben, so auch im Zuge der Einf{\"u}hrung des so genannten Qualit{\"a}tsmanagements von Studium und Lehre an deutschen Hochschulen. Die vorliegende Dissertationsschrift stellt die Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie vor, die mit einer soziologischen Betrachtung des Qualit{\"a}tsmanagements unterschiedlicher Hochschulen zu dieser Diskussion beitr{\"a}gt. Auf Grundlage der Pr{\"a}misse, dass Verlauf und Folgen einer organisationalen Innovation nur verstanden werden k{\"o}nnen, wenn der allt{\"a}gliche Umgang der Organisationsmitglieder mit den neuen Strukturen und Prozessen in die Analyse einbezogen wird, geht die Studie von der Frage aus, wie Akteurinnen und Akteure an deutschen Hochschulen die Qualit{\"a}tsmanagementsysteme ihrer Organisationen nutzen. Die qualitative inhaltsanalytische Auswertung von 26 Leitfaden-Interviews mit Prorektorinnen und -rektoren, Qualit{\"a}tsmanagement-Personal und Studiendekaninnen und -dekanen an neun Hochschulen ergibt, dass die Strategien der Akteursgruppen an den Hochschulen im Zusammenspiel mit strukturellen Aspekten unterschiedliche Dynamiken entstehen lassen, mit denen Implikationen f{\"u}r die Lehrfreiheit verbunden sind: W{\"a}hrend die Autonomie der Lehrenden durch das Qualit{\"a}tsmanagement an einigen Hochschulen unterst{\"u}tzt wird, sind sowohl Autonomie als auch Verantwortung f{\"u}r Studium und Lehre an anderen Hochschulen Gegenstand andauernder Konflikte, die auch das Qualit{\"a}tsmanagement einschließen.},
  language  = {de}
}
@phdthesis{Radtke2020,
  author    = {Radtke, Ina},
  title     = {Organizing immigration},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {174},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Immigration constitutes a dynamic policy field with - often quite unpredictable - dynamics. This is based on immigration constituting a 'wicked problem' meaning that it is characterized by uncertainty, ambiguity and complexity. Due to the dynamics in the policy field, expectations towards public administrations often change. Following neo-institutionalist theory, public administrations depend on meeting the expectations in the organizational field in order to maintain legitimacy as the basis for, e.g., resources and compliance of stakeholders. With the dynamics in the policy field, expectations might change and public administrations consequently need to adapt in order to maintain or repair the then threatened legitimacy. If their organizational legitimacy is threatened by a perception of structures and processes being inadequate for changed expectations, an 'institutional crisis' unfolds. However, we know little about ministerial bureaucracies' structural reactions to such crucial momentums and how this effects the quest for coordination within policy-making. Overall, the dissertation thus links to both policy analysis and public administration research and consists of five publications. It asks: How do structures in ministerial bureaucracies change in the context of institutional crises? And what effect do these changes have on ministerial coordination? The dissertation hereby focusses on the above described dynamic policy field of immigration in Germany in the period from 2005 to 2017 and pursues three objectives: 1) to identify the context and impulse for changes in the structures of ministerial bureaucracies, 2) to describe respective changes with regard to their organizational structures, and 3) to identify their effect on coordination. It hereby compares and contrasts institutional crises by incremental change and shock as well as changes and effects at federal and L{\"a}nder level which allows a comprehensive answer to both of the research questions. Theoretically, the dissertation follows neo-institutionalist theory with a particular focus on changes in organizational structures, coordination and crisis management. Methodologically, it follows a comparative design. Each article (except for the literature review), focusses on ministerial bureaucracies at one governmental level (federal or L{\"a}nder) and on an institutional crisis induced by either an incremental process or a shock. Thus, responses and effects can be compared and contrasted across impulses for institutional crises and governmental levels. Overall, the dissertation follows a mixed methods approach with a majority of qualitative single and small-n case studies based on document analysis and semi-structured interviews. Additionally, two articles use quantitative methods as they best suited the respective research question. The rather explorative nature of these two articles however fits to the overall interpretivist approach of the dissertation. Overall, the dissertation's core argument is: Within the investigation period, varying dynamics and thus impulses for institutional crises took place in the German policy field of immigration. Respectively, expectations by stakeholders on how the politico-administrative system should address the policy problem changed. Ministerial administrations at both the federal and L{\"a}nder level adapted to these expectations in order to maintain, or regain respectively, organizational legitimacy. The administration hereby referred to well-known recipes of structural changes. Institutional crises do not constitute fields of experimentation. The new structures had an immediate effect on ministerial coordination, with respect to both the horizontal and vertical dimension. Yet, they did not mean a comprehensive change of the system in place. The dissertation thus challenges the idea of the toppling effect of crises and rather shows that adaptability and persistence of public administrations constitute two sides of the same coin.},
  language  = {en}
}