TY - INPR A1 - Sprinz, Detlef F. T1 - Long-Term environmental policy challenges for research T2 - The journal of environment & development : a review of international policy N2 - Long-term policy issues are a particularly vexing class of environmental policy issues which merit increasing attention due to the long-time horizons involved, the incongruity with political cycles, and the challenges for collective action. Following the definition of long-term environmental policy challenges, I pose three questions as challenges for future research, namely 1. Are present democracies well suited to cope with long-term policy challenges? 2. Are top-down or bottom-up solutions to long-term environmental policy challenges advisable? 3. Will mitigation and adaptation of environmental challenges suffice? In concluding, the contribution raises the issue of credible commitment for long-term policy issues and potential design options. KW - anniversary issue KW - long-term policy KW - definition KW - design options KW - environmental policy Y1 - 2012 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496511435667 SN - 1070-4965 VL - 21 IS - 1 SP - 67 EP - 70 PB - Sage Publ. CY - Thousand Oaks ER - TY - GEN A1 - Sprinz, Detlef F. T1 - Long-term environmental policy BT - challenges for research N2 - Long-term policy issues are a particularly vexing class of environmental policy issues which merit increasing attention due to the long-time horizons involved, the incongruity with political cycles, and the challenges for collective action. Following the definition of long-term environmental policy challenges, I pose three questions as challenges for future research, namely 1. Are present democracies well suited to cope with long-term policy challenges? 2. Are top-down or bottom-up solutions to long-term environmental policy challenges advisable? 3. Will mitigation and adaptation of environmental challenges suffice? In concluding, the contribution raises the issue of credible commitment for long-term policy issues and potential design options. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe - 81 KW - anniversary issue KW - long-term policy KW - definition KW - design options KW - environmental policy Y1 - 2017 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-403193 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Neuendorf, Claudia A1 - Jansen, Matte A1 - Kuhl, Poldi A1 - Vock, Miriam T1 - Wer ist leistungsstark? BT - Operationalisierung von Leistungsstärke in der empirischen Bildungsforschung seit dem Jahr 2000 BT - Operationalisation of high achievement in empirical educational research since the year 2000 JF - Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie. N2 - Who is a high achiever? Operationalisation of high achievement in empirical educational research since the year 2000 Abstract. In recent years, high-achieving students have received increased attention by researchers, policymakers and practitioners. However, the question of what exactly constitutes high academic achievement is not yet agreed upon by the research community. This paper provides a systematic review of how researchers studying high-achieving students since 2000 have operationalized high academic achievement in their research. In particular, we examined which performance indicators were used, whether achievement was conceived of as subject-specific or general, and which cut-off values and comparison standards were applied. The systematic database search yielded N = 309 articles, n = 55 of which were finally included in the analysis. The present study observed a diversity in the operationalization of performance. The most commonly used indicators of performance were grades and test scores, with cross-domain and subject-specific definitions both being common. Some of the studies' cut-off values were difficult to compare, but in instances where a population norm could be derived, the median proportion of high achievers was 10 percent. The study discusses that constraints on generalizability and comparability between different studies on high achievers can arise due to methodological differences. This paper concludes with recommendations for the operationalization of high achievement. N2 - Leistungsstarke Kinder und Jugendliche sind in den letzten Jahren zunehmend in den Fokus der Bildungspolitik und der Bildungsforschung gerückt. Allerdings gibt es in der Forschung bislang kein geteiltes Verständnis darüber, was genau unter akademischer Leistungsstärke zu verstehen ist. Die vorliegende Arbeit gibt einen systematischen Überblick darüber, wie Forschende, die seit dem Jahr 2000 die Gruppe der leistungsstarken Schülerinnen und Schüler erforschten, Leistungsstärke in ihren Studien operationalisiert haben. Dabei wurde insbesondere untersucht, welche Leistungsindikatoren genutzt wurden, ob ein spezifischer Fachbezug hergestellt wurde und welche Cut-off-Werte und Vergleichsmaßstäbe angelegt wurden. Die systematische Datenbanksuche lieferte insgesamt N = 309 Artikel, von denen n = 55 die Einschlusskriterien erfüllten. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass eine große Vielfalt in der Operationalisierung von Leistungsstärke vorliegt. Die meistgenutzten Leistungsindikatoren waren Noten und Testwerte, wobei fächerübergreifende und fachspezifische Definitionen beide häufig waren. Die Cut-off-Werte der Studien waren zum Teil schwierig vergleichbar, aber dort, wo ein Populationsbezug hergestellt werden konnte, lag der Median des Populationsanteils Leistungsstarker bei 10 Prozent. Die Studie diskutiert methodische und inhaltliche Rahmenbedingungen, welche sich auf die Operationalisierung von Leistungsstärke und ihre Vergleichbarkeit über Studien hinweg auswirken. Die vorliegende Arbeit schließt mit Empfehlungen zur Operationalisierung von Leistungsstärke. T2 - Who is a high achiever? KW - high-achieving students KW - operationalization KW - definition KW - review KW - giftedness KW - leistungsstarke Schüler_innen KW - Hochbegabung Y1 - 2022 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000343 SN - 1010-0652 SN - 1664-2910 VL - 37 SP - 1 EP - 19 PB - Hogrefe CY - Bern ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Beier, Grischa A1 - Ullrich, André A1 - Niehoff, Silke A1 - Reißig, Malte A1 - Habich, Matthias T1 - Industry 4.0 BT - how it is defined from a sociotechnical perspective and how much sustainability it includes - a literature review JF - Journal of cleaner production N2 - Industry 4.0 has had a strong influence on the debate on the digitalization of industrial processes, despite being criticized for lacking a proper definition. However, Industry 4.0 might offer a huge chance to align the goals of a sustainable development with the ongoing digital transformation in industrial development. The main contribution of this paper is therefore twofold. We provide a de-facto definition of the concept "Industry 4.0" from a sociotechnical perspective based on its most often cited key features, as well as a thorough review of how far the concept of sustainability is incorporated in it. KW - sustainability KW - digitalization KW - manufacturing KW - Industry 4.0 KW - definition KW - sociotechnical approach Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120856 SN - 0959-6526 SN - 1879-1786 VL - 259 PB - Elsevier Science CY - Amsterdam ER -