@article{62165, abstract = {{Academic publishing is both an indication of scientific contribution and a currency for career advancement. This dual role gives rise to a normative scientific conflict: Does the structural incentive to publish constitute a conflict of interest (COI) that ought to be disclosed? In this paper, we address this conflict through an action research approach, engaging collaboratively and reflexively to answer four related questions: (1) What evidence suggests that researchers face a (financial) COI when publishing? (2) What are the benefits and drawbacks of explicitly acknowledging that publications function as academic currency? (3) How should such conflicts be disclosed? (4) Do mechanisms such as pre-registration and registered reports resolve these concerns? This paper contends that while researchers are clearly incentivised to publish, this interest need not necessarily constitute a conflict or be explicitly disclosed. Treating this issue as a normative scientific conflict does reveal the need for a shift in how researchers understand and navigate the subjective, self-interested dimensions of their work. We propose four key responses: (1) integrating discussions of COIs and biases more extensively into undergraduate science education, (2) promoting greater reflexivity in everyday research practice (e.g., through reflexivity journals, peer-led audit groups, and the reintegration of discussions on the historicity and cultural nature of research into scientific publications), (3) critically investigating institutional incentives and journal policies, and (4) proactively adopting methodological safeguards such as pre-registration. By addressing this conflict through action research, we demonstrate how normative tensions in science can be made productive — supporting both critical reflection and structural improvement.}}, author = {{Acem, Ensar and Aczel, Balazs and Albayrak, Nihan and Brown, Nicholas J. L. and Dudda, Leonie A. and Elsherif, Mahmoud Medhat and Gjoneska, Biljana and Kowal, Marta and Krishna, Anand and Miłkoś, Szymon and Paruzel-Czachura, Mariola and Patel, Jay and Pypno-Blajda, Katarzyna and Scharlau, Ingrid and Verheyen, Steven and Zubaly, Benjamin}}, issn = {{0304-2421}}, journal = {{Theory and Society}}, publisher = {{Springer Science and Business Media LLC}}, title = {{{Why I declare a conflict of interest and you should not}}}, doi = {{10.1007/s11186-025-09641-3}}, year = {{2025}}, } @article{61944, abstract = {{his article describes a new student-based approach to Decoding and Disrupting. This approach consists of an educational programme that works with a multidisciplinary group of undergraduate students, so-called Culture Fellows. In the programme, the students learn about theories on disciplinary cultures and their practices, Decoding the Disciplines, and communication. The programme focuses on the implicitness of disciplinary practices and how to explore them, i.e., it seeks to address the importance of making disciplinary practices, norms, and values more accessible to students. Within the programme, the Culture Fellows use a student-based variant of the Decoding the Disciplines Paradigm that we call ‘Culture Quest’. The Culture Quest supplies students with the tools to question, explore, and decode their respective disciplines and practices. Disciplinary practices often remain implicit because lecturers, with their wealth of experience and expertise in their discipline, may be operationally blind and thus no longer aware of the fact that certain practices might need to be explained. This lack of explanation or explicitness can lead to students feeling bewildered, confused or puzzled. The Culture Fellows and in particular the Culture Quest can encourage dialogue about and exploration of disciplinary cultures and their practices and can thus allow students to grasp the implicit cultural norms and expectations within their respective disciplines more clearly. The Culture Fellows and the Culture Quest provide students – and maybe even lecturers – with opportunities to engage with and reflect on teaching and learning strategies and practices.}}, author = {{Schmöckel, Sabrina and Scharlau, Ingrid}}, issn = {{1918-0853}}, journal = {{Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal}}, number = {{3}}, pages = {{98--115}}, publisher = {{Penn State University Libraries}}, title = {{{No Student Should Be an Island: A Peer-Approach to Decoding and Disrupting}}}, doi = {{10.59236/td2025vol18iss31913}}, volume = {{18}}, year = {{2025}}, } @article{62204, author = {{Schmöckel, Sabrina}}, journal = {{die hochschullehre}}, title = {{{Hör mal, wer da spricht – Eine dialogische Perspektive auf studentische Äußerungen zu Fachkulturen}}}, year = {{2025}}, } @inbook{61517, author = {{Alpsancar, Suzana}}, booktitle = {{Algorithmische Wissenskulturen. Der Einfluss des Computers auf die Wissenschaftsentwicklung}}, editor = {{Hashagen, Ulf and Seising, Rudolf}}, isbn = {{9783658355593}}, issn = {{2730-7425}}, pages = {{327–365}}, publisher = {{Springer}}, title = {{{Algorithmische Kulturen des Pflanzensammelns? Das Beispiel der Computerisierung des Botanischen Gartens und Botanischen Museums Berlin}}}, doi = {{10.1007/978-3-658-35560-9_14}}, year = {{2025}}, } @unpublished{59917, abstract = {{nder the slogan of trustworthy AI, much of contemporary AI research is focused on designing AI systems and usage practices that inspire human trust and, thus, enhance adoption of AI systems. However, a person affected by an AI system may not be convinced by AI system design alone---neither should they, if the AI system is embedded in a social context that gives good reason to believe that it is used in tension with a person’s interest. In such cases, distrust in the system may be justified and necessary to build meaningful trust in the first place. We propose the term \emph{healthy distrust} to describe such a justified, careful stance towards certain AI usage practices. We investigate prior notions of trust and distrust in computer science, sociology, history, psychology, and philosophy, outline a remaining gap that healthy distrust might fill and conceptualize healthy distrust as a crucial part for AI usage that respects human autonomy.}}, author = {{Paaßen, Benjamin and Alpsancar, Suzana and Matzner, Tobias and Scharlau, Ingrid}}, booktitle = {{arXiv}}, title = {{{Healthy Distrust in AI systems}}}, year = {{2025}}, } @article{62028, abstract = {{Explainable AI (XAI) methods can support the identification of biases in automated decision-making (ADM) systems. However, existing research does not sufficiently address whether these biases originate from the ADM system or mirror underlying societal inequalities. This distinction is important because it has major implications for how to act upon an explanation: while the societal bias produced by the ADM system can be algorithmically fixed, societal inequalities demand societal actions. To address this gap, we propose the RR-XAI-framework (recognition-redistribution through XAI) that builds on a distinction between socio-technical and societal bias and Nancy Fraser's justice theory of recognition and redistribution. In our framework, explanations can play two distinct roles: as a socio-technical diagnosis when they reveal biases produced by the ADM system itself, or as a societal diagnosis when they expose biases that reflect broader societal inequalities. We then outline the operationalization of the framework and discuss its applicability for cases in algorithmic hiring and credit scoring. Based on our findings, we argue that the diagnostic functions of XAI are contingent on the provision of such explanations, the resources of the audiences, as well as the current limits of XAI techniques.}}, author = {{Fahimi, Miriam and State, Laura and Kasirzadeh, Atoosa}}, issn = {{3065-8365}}, journal = {{Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society}}, number = {{1}}, pages = {{879--892}}, publisher = {{Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)}}, title = {{{From Explaining to Diagnosing: A Justice-Oriented Framework of Explainable AI for Bias Detection}}}, doi = {{10.1609/aies.v8i1.36597}}, volume = {{8}}, year = {{2025}}, } @inproceedings{62229, abstract = {{In 2024, the EU adopted the AI Act, a new set of rules for trustworthy artificial intelligence. This legal instrument carves a large place for standardisation, a regulatory technique that consists in crafting so-called harmonised technical standards, to facilitate legal compliance by industry stakeholders. While EU technical standards have been used in the past for ensuring product safety, for the first time the AI Act relies on standardisation to facilitate compliance with fundamental rights, including the right to non-discrimination and equality. The attempt to translate inherently open-textured rights and ethical principles into operationalizable standards raises critical questions. In particular, how will standardisation practices under the new EU AI Act affect, transform, contest and stabilise notions of equality and non-discrimination in an increasingly algorithmic society? This paper proposes a research agenda to address this question and unpack the black box of AI standardisation.}}, author = {{Xenidis, Raphaële and Fahimi, Miriam}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of Fourth European Workshop on Algorithmic Fairness}}, pages = {{310–314}}, publisher = {{PMLR}}, title = {{{Standardising Equality in the Algorithmic Society? A Research Agenda}}}, year = {{2025}}, } @article{57531, author = {{Alpsancar, Suzana and Buhl, Heike M. and Matzner, Tobias and Scharlau, Ingrid}}, journal = {{AI and Ethics}}, pages = {{3015–3033}}, publisher = {{Springer}}, title = {{{Explanation needs and ethical demands: unpacking the instrumental value of XAI}}}, doi = {{https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00622-3}}, volume = {{5}}, year = {{2025}}, } @inbook{62305, author = {{Reijers, Wessel and Matzner, Tobias and Alpsancar, Suzana}}, booktitle = {{Digital Development. Technology, Ethics and Governance}}, editor = {{Farina, Mirko and Yu, Xiao and Chen, Jin}}, isbn = {{9781003567622}}, publisher = {{Routledge}}, title = {{{Explainability and AI Governance}}}, doi = {{10.4324/9781003567622-22}}, year = {{2025}}, } @article{62647, abstract = {{Anti-Islam and anti-Muslim attitudes are frequently perceived without sufficient differentiation. The absence of a clear distinction between attitudes towards individuals and attitudes towards the religion itself is evident in definitions that conflate (attitudes towards) Islam and Muslims, as well as in the operationalization process where surveys on overtly anti-Muslim attitudes are labelled as measuring anti-Islam attitudes. To explore whether the interchangeable usage of these terms is valid or whether there is empirical evidence supporting the need to differentiate between anti-Islam and anti-Muslim attitudes, an online survey was conducted (n = 497). The results indicate that anti-Islam and anti- Muslim attitudes are statistically distinct constructs that are nevertheless correlated. Furthermore, the study investigates the extent to which variations in the degree of hostile attitudes towards Islam and Muslims can be observed. The findings reveal that Islam is evaluated significantly more negatively than Muslims. In addition, an analysis of free associations related to the terms Islam and Muslims highlights notable differences. Although the respondents oftentimes see Muslims in the context of migration and integration, associations with Muslims tend to be more positive and based on personal experiences and interactions than associations with Islam. Associations with Islam, on the other hand, are characterized by threat and conflict and externalization to foreign countries. These findings have important implications for the theoretical conceptualization of anti- Islam and anti-Muslim attitudes. By differentiating between anti-Islam and anti- Muslim attitudes, it becomes possible to deconstruct these phenomena into their constituent elements and to understand their various dimensions. It is only through such disentanglement that the interconnected nature of anti-Islam and anti-Muslim attitudes can be comprehensively examined and effectively addressed.}}, author = {{Diekmann, Isabell}}, journal = {{Patterns of Prejudice}}, number = {{1}}, pages = {{75–97}}, title = {{{Unpacking Hostile Attitudes towards Islam and Muslims: A Differentiated Approach to Understanding Perceptions of Religion and People}}}, doi = {{10.1080/0031322X.2025.2557101}}, volume = {{59}}, year = {{2025}}, } @inproceedings{62344, abstract = {{kein Abstract vorhanden}}, author = {{Decuypere, Mathias and Hartong, Sigrid and Joecks, Lucas and Knox, Jeremy and Ortegón, Carlos and Schmidt, Rebecca and Williamson, Ben}}, location = {{Zürich}}, publisher = {{LibreCat University}}, title = {{{Critical Edtech Studies. Defining the field; envisioning the future. 2025 Position statement after the inaugural edition of the European Conference on Critical Edtech Studies (ECCES).}}}, doi = {{10.5281/ZENODO.17672486}}, year = {{2025}}, } @article{62932, abstract = {{Many previous studies on the conceptual function of metaphors have focused on their func-tion of highlighting aspects of target concepts. From the beginning of this research, it was knownthat conceptual metaphors also hide aspects of the target concept; however, this as-pect has been less studied. This study builds upon the idea that the hiding aspect of a specific metaphor should be identified in relation to other metaphors for the same concept. A method is presented to detail this relation based on the theory of semantic frames and the FrameNet resource to identify the hidden aspects and apply it to a corpus of 298 elicited metaphor texts on the target concept of understanding. The analysis revealed that certain conceptual aspects are consistently hidden by a majority of metaphors, pointing to patterns in conceptualization. Using this approach, six aspects frequently hidden by metaphors were identified: Sociality, Transfer, Ownership, Perception, Foundation and Duration.}}, author = {{Porwol, Philip Fabian and Scharlau, Ingrid}}, journal = {{STUDIA NEOFILOLOGICZ: NEROZPRAWY JĘZYKOZNAWCZE (Modern Language Studies: Linguistic Essays)}}, pages = {{181--198}}, publisher = {{Uniwersytet Jana Długosza w Częstochowie}}, title = {{{What do metaphors of understanding hide?}}}, volume = {{XXI}}, year = {{2025}}, } @inbook{59742, author = {{Scharlau, Ingrid and Jenert, Tobias}}, booktitle = {{Psychologiedidaktik an allgemeinbildenden und beruflichen Schulen: Ein Lehrbuch mit Unterrichtsmaterialien}}, editor = {{Scharlau, Ingrid and Bender, Elena and Patrzek, Justine and Schreiber, Christine}}, isbn = {{978-3-662-69480-0}}, pages = {{1--17}}, publisher = {{Springer Nature}}, title = {{{Didaktische Überlegungen in der Psychologie}}}, year = {{2025}}, } @article{63075, abstract = {{Dieser Beitrag fokussiert zum einen die Differenzierung unterschiedlicher Adressat:innen von Feindlichkeit und damit die Frage, inwiefern feindliche Einstellungen gegenüber der Religion des Islams und gegenüber muslimischen Menschen identisch sind. Zum anderen sensibilisiert dieser Beitrag für die unterschiedlichen Ebenen, auf denen Islam-/ Muslim:innenfeindlichkeit als individuelle Einstellungen und antimuslimischer Rassismus als Strukturmerkmal verortet sind. Er zeigt die unterschiedlichen Paradigmen der beiden Forschungstraditionen auf, argumentiert aber auch für ein integratives Verständnis der Konzepte, da die individuelle und strukturelle Ebene eng miteinander verwoben sind. Der Beitrag schließt mit einer Diskussion um theoretische, methodologische und insbesondere handlungspraktische Implikationen im Umgang mit Islam-/ Muslim:innenfeindlichkeit und antimuslimischem Rassismus.}}, author = {{Diekmann, Isabell}}, journal = {{Konfliktdynamik}}, number = {{4}}, pages = {{279–287}}, title = {{{Islamfeindlichkeit, Muslim:innenfeindlichkeit und antimuslimischer Rassismus: Differenzierende und integrative Ansätze zur Konzeptionalisierung}}}, doi = {{10.5771/2193-0147-2025-4-279}}, volume = {{14}}, year = {{2025}}, } @inbook{61239, abstract = {{In diesem Beitrag wird ein Überblick gegeben, welche Forschung zu Digitalisierung und künstliche Intelligenz (KI) in den Bereichen Verwaltung, Forschung, Studium und Lehre sowie Governance von Hochschulen besteht. Der Fokus liegt hierbei auf aktuellen Forschungsergebnissen seit der Coronapandemie. Zentral sind Fragen nach Effektivität und Effizienz durch Digitalisierung und KI und danach, wie Verbesserungen angestoßen werden können.}}, author = {{Steinhardt, Isabel}}, booktitle = {{Hochschulforschung}}, editor = {{Pasternach, Peer and Reinmann, Gabi and Schneijderberg, Christian}}, isbn = {{9783748943334}}, keywords = {{Digitalisierung, Künstliche Intelligenz, Forschung, Lehre, Governance, Verwaltung}}, pages = {{197--206}}, publisher = {{Nomos}}, title = {{{Digitalisierung und Künstliche Intelligenz}}}, doi = {{10.5771/9783748943334-197}}, year = {{2025}}, } @inbook{61237, abstract = {{In diesem Beitrag wird zunächst die historische Entstehung von Open Science kurz skizziert und definiert, was unter diesem Begriff zu verstehen ist. Daran anschließend werden die Open-Science-Praktiken Open Data, Open Access, Open Source, Open Methodology und Open Peer Review dargestellt und diskutiert, welche Forschungserkenntnisse zu Open Science vorhanden sind. Im Schluss werden Forschungsdesiderate aufgegriffen und die Implikationen von Open Science für die Wissenschaft erläutert.}}, author = {{Steinhardt, Isabel and Röwert, Ronny}}, booktitle = {{Hochschulforschung}}, editor = {{Pasternack, Peer and Reinmann, Gabi and Schneijderberg, Christian }}, isbn = {{9783748943334}}, keywords = {{Open Data, Open Access, Open Source, Open Methodology, Open Peer Review}}, pages = {{487--496}}, publisher = {{Nomos}}, title = {{{Open Science}}}, doi = {{10.5771/9783748943334-487}}, year = {{2025}}, } @article{60624, author = {{Hagengruber, Ruth Edith and Velema, Floris}}, journal = {{Journal of Didactics of Philosophy}}, title = {{{Teaching Hypotheses with Émilie du Châtelet}}}, doi = {{https://doi.org/10.46586/JDPh.2025.12196}}, year = {{2025}}, } @misc{63185, author = {{Schmidt, Rebecca}}, booktitle = {{ Sozialwissenschaftliche Methodenberatung}}, title = {{{KI als Herausforderungen für die qualitative Methodenlehre – ein Diskussionsaufruf!}}}, year = {{2025}}, } @inbook{63390, author = {{Buhl, Heike M. and Hilkenmeier, Johanna}}, booktitle = {{Handbuch Entwicklungs- und Erziehungspsychologie}}, editor = {{Kracke, Bärbel and Noack, Peter}}, publisher = {{Springer}}, title = {{{Bildung und Lesesozialisation im Elternhaus}}}, doi = {{10.1007/978-3-642-54061-5_10-2}}, year = {{2025}}, } @inbook{55089, author = {{Grewe, Felix}}, booktitle = {{Festschrift - Mary Ellen Waithe}}, editor = {{Hagengruber, Ruth Edith}}, publisher = {{Springer}}, title = {{{Rebellious Witnesses: Why a Reorientation of Patriarchal Scientific and Social Culture is Urgently Needed}}}, year = {{2025}}, }