300 Sozialwissenschaften
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (180)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (109)
- Doctoral Thesis (89)
- Postprint (57)
- Master's Thesis (16)
- Part of a Book (13)
- Other (12)
- Report (7)
- Bachelor Thesis (4)
- Review (2)
Keywords
- Lehrevaluation (37)
- Curriculum Framework (36)
- European values education (36)
- Europäische Werteerziehung (36)
- Studierendenaustausch (36)
- Unterrichtseinheiten (36)
- curriculum framework (36)
- lesson evaluation (36)
- student exchange (36)
- teaching units (36)
Institute
- Sozialwissenschaften (204)
- Institut für Umweltwissenschaften und Geographie (83)
- Extern (59)
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (26)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (22)
- Zentrum für Sprachen und Schlüsselkompetenzen (Zessko) (18)
- Department Erziehungswissenschaft (9)
- Fachgruppe Soziologie (6)
- Historisches Institut (6)
- Department Psychologie (5)
The demand for learning Design Thinking (DT) as a path towards acquiring 21st-century skills has increased globally in the last decade. Because DT education originated in the Silicon Valley context of the d.school at Stanford, it is important to evaluate how the teaching of the methodology adapts to different cultural contexts.The thesis explores the impact of the socio-cultural context on DT education.
DT institutes in Cape Town, South Africa and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, were visited to observe their programs and conduct 22 semistructured interviews with local educators regarding their adaption strategies. Grounded theory methodology was used to develop a model of Socio-Cultural Adaptation of Design Thinking Education that maps these strategies onto five dimensions: Planning, Process, People, Place, and Presentation. Based on this model, a list of recommendations is provided to help DT educators and practitioners in designing and delivering culturally inclusive DT education.
In Europe, different countries developed a rich variety of sub-municipal institutions. Out of the plethora of intra- and sub-municipal decentralization forms (reaching from local outposts of city administration to “quasi-federal” structures), this book focuses on territorial sub-municipal units (SMUs) which combine multipurpose territorial responsibility with democratic legitimacy and can be seen as institutions promoting the articulation and realization of collective choices at a sub-municipal level.
Country chapters follow a common pattern that is facilitating systematic comparisons, while at the same time leaving enough space for national peculiarities and priorities chosen and highlighted by the authors, who also take advantage of the eventually existing empirical surveys and case studies.
Local Government Systems
(2017)
This chapter looks for main differences among local government systems as well as similarities among them. This has been done by the authors with the aim to grasp the institutional setting in which mayors have to act. The authors did it by updating and extending existing typologies and indices of local government systems. Nevertheless, an extension was first of all necessary with respect to vertical power relations because previous typologies considering them took neither the local government systems in Eastern and Central Europe nor the changes in the Western part of the continent into account. Furthermore, reflections about typologies are extended to the present one on public administration at the municipal level. All this have been underpinned by statistical data, the recent work on a ‘Local Autonomy Index’ (LAI; see Ladner et al. Measuring Autonomy in 39 Countries (1990–2014), Regional and Federal Studies, 26, 321–357, 2016) and information collected by the partners involved in the survey.
This paper analyses the interaction of domestic political elites and external donors against the backdrop of Mozambique’s decentralisation process. The empirical research at national and local levels supports the hypothesis that informal power structures influence the dynamics of this interaction. Consequently, this contributes to an outcome of externally induced democratisation different to what was intended by external actors. The decentralisation process has been utilised by ruling domestic elites for political purposes. Donors have rather focused on the technical side and ignored this informal dimension. By analysing the diverging objectives and perceptions of external and internal actors, as well as the instrumentalisation of formal democratic structures, it becomes clear, that the ‘informal has to be seen as normal’. At a theoretical level, the analysis contributes to elite-oriented approaches of post-conflict democratisation by adding ‘the informal’ as an additional factor for the dynamics of external-internal interaction. At a policy level, external actors need to take more into account informal power structures and their ambivalence for state-building and democratisation.
Trumponomics
(2017)
Trump’s foreign policy vision and Trumponomics is deconstructed in an attempt to find a theoretical framework. It is shown that Trump projects a vision without much ideology but arguably a vision with sufficient potential for pragmatism and Realpolitik. Theoretical and conceptual frameworks, including philosophical, political and economic perspectives, and Trump’s mercantilist groundings are articulated. It is argued that Trumponomics contrasts with the ‘transformational diplomacy’ of previous USA administrations. Instead it is immersed in short-sighted ‘transactional diplomacy’, which will have a significant impact on the values of development aid.
Development Aid
(2017)
Development aid has been an important catalyst for economic development and international politics since the end of WWII. A critical analysis of the main political, social and economic advances in development aid, traces the development agenda from the advent of the Bretton Woods agreement, the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, to the Washington Consensus and its neoliberal manifesto. The failure of the Washington Consensus and the rise of the post-Washington Consensus is analysed providing a backdrop for the critique of economic globalisation as a development aid cornerstone. Trump’s rejection of the neoliberal globalisation agenda and departure from post-WWII ideologies is discussed.
Struggling over crisis
(2018)
If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions.” Following the premise of this quotation attributed to Winston Churchill, varying perceptions of the European crisis by academic economists and their structural homology to economists’ positions in the field of economics are examined. The dataset analysed using specific multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and hierarchical agglomerative clustering (HAC) comprises information on the careers of 480 German-speaking economists and on statements they made concerning crisis-related issues. It can be shown that the main structural differences in the composition and amount of scientific and academic capital held by economists as well as their age and degree of transnationalisation are linked to how they see the crisis: as a national sovereign debt crisis, as a European banking crisis, or as a crisis of European integration and institutions.
This introductory essay to the HSR Special Issue “Economists, Politics, and Society” argues for a strong field-theoretical programme inspired by Pierre Bourdieu to research economic life as an integral part of different social forms. Its main aim is threefold. First, we spell out the very distinct Durkheimian legacy in Bourdieu’s thinking and the way he applies it in researching economic phenomena. Without this background, much of what is actually part of how Bourdieu analysed economic aspects of social life would be overlooked or reduced to mere economic sociology. Second, we sketch the main theoretical concepts and heuristics used to analyse economic life from a field perspective. Third, we focus on practical methodological issues of field-analytical research into economic phenomena. We conclude with a short summary of the basic characteristics of this approach and discuss the main insights provided by the contributions to this special issue.
Why choice matters
(2018)
Measures of democracy are in high demand. Scientific and public audiences use them to describe political realities and to substantiate causal claims about those realities. This introduction to the thematic issue reviews the history of democracy measurement since the 1950s. It identifies four development phases of the field, which are characterized by three recurrent topics of debate: (1) what is democracy, (2) what is a good measure of democracy, and (3) do our measurements of democracy register real-world developments? As the answers to those questions have been changing over time, the field of democracy measurement has adapted and reached higher levels of theoretical and methodological sophistication. In effect, the challenges facing contemporary social scientists are not only limited to the challenge of constructing a sound index of democracy. Today, they also need a profound understanding of the differences between various measures of democracy and their implications for empirical applications. The introduction outlines how the contributions to this thematic issue help scholars cope with the recurrent issues of conceptualization, measurement, and application, and concludes by identifying avenues for future research.