@inproceedings{51307,
  author       = {{Haker, Christoph and Otterspeer, Lukas}},
  booktitle    = {{Grenzen auflösen – Grenzen ziehen: Grenzbearbeitungen zwischen Erziehungswissenschaft, Politik und Gesellschaft}},
  editor       = {{Frank, Magnus and Geier, Thomas and Hornberg, Sabine and Machold, Claudia and Otterspeer, Lukas and Singer-Brodowski, Mandy and Stošić, Patricia}},
  isbn         = {{9783847417798}},
  publisher    = {{Verlag Barbara Budrich}},
  title        = {{{Grenzbearbeitungen – methodologische Überlegungen zu einer sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschungsperspektive}}},
  doi          = {{10.2307/j.ctv33p9zs4.4}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@inbook{51306,
  author       = {{Haker, Christoph and Otterspeer, Lukas and Schildknecht, Lukas}},
  booktitle    = {{Demokratie unter Druck}},
  pages        = {{82--93}},
  title        = {{{Antiakademismus heute}}},
  volume       = {{12}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{34133,
  abstract     = {{<jats:p>In diesem Beitrag wird die ‚What Works‘-Debatte in der Sozialen Arbeit um die zentrale Frage nach Wirkfaktoren erweitert. Der empirische Nachweis von Wirkfaktoren in sozialarbeiterischen Interventionen ist bis heute ein Desiderat. Vor dem Hintergrund der Realist Evaluation werden in diesem Beitrag relevante Wirkfaktoren (Kontexte und Mechanismen) herausgearbeitet. Datengrundlage stellt eine Onlinebefragung von 200 fallführenden Fachpersonen in vier sozialarbeiterischen Handlungsfeldern in der deutschsprachigen Schweiz dar (Arbeitsintegration, Bewährungshilfe, Schuldnerberatung, Sozialhilfe). Die Ergebnisse verweisen auf signifi kante Wirkfaktoren von erfolgreichen Interventionen, u.a. Arbeitsstile der Fachpersonen und Verhaltensmerkmale der Klient(inn)en und können in einem allgemeinen Wirkungsmodell mit handlungsfeldübergreifenden Outcomes verdichtet werden. Diese Erkenntnisse leisten einen Beitrag zur Professionalisierung der Sozialen Arbeit sowie zur Konstruktion von Wirkungsmodellen und sollen zukünftige weitere Forschungsvorhaben in diese Richtung anregen.</jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Schneijderberg, Christian and Götze, Nicolai and Steinhardt, Isabel and Schindler, Janosch}},
  issn         = {{1619-5515}},
  journal      = {{Zeitschrift für Evaluation}},
  keywords     = {{Soziologie des Wertens und Bewertens, Peer Review, Akkreditierung, Hochschule}},
  number       = {{02}},
  pages        = {{217--244}},
  publisher    = {{Waxmann}},
  title        = {{{(Be)Werten im organisationsabhängigen Interaktionssystem: das Beispiel Peer Review in Akkreditierungsverfahren von Hochschulen und Studiengängen}}},
  doi          = {{10.31244/zfe.2022.02.03}},
  volume       = {{21}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@phdthesis{47145,
  abstract     = {{Hochschulische Bildungsverläufe und -erfolge sind in Deutschland anhaltend maßgeblich von der sozialen Herkunft beeinflusst. Gleichzeitig bestehen Anforderungen an moderne Gesellschaften, Unterschiede in den bildungsbezogenen Chancen abzuschaffen, die nicht aus Leistungsunterschieden, sondern aus der Zugehörigkeit zu bestimmten sozialen Gruppen resultieren. Auch angesichts der hohen Bedeutung der Studieneingangsphase für den Studienerfolg stellt sich die Frage, wie sich Unterschiede in den ökonomischen und kulturellen Ressourcen der Herkunftsfamilie auf den Verlauf der Studieneingangsphase auswirken. Welche Unterschiede zeigen sich in den Bedingungen des Studienverbleibs, der Ausstattung mit studienverbleibsrelevanten Ressourcen und dem Umgang mit Problemen? Die Untersuchung zeigt vor allem zweierlei: Zum einen sind die Schwierigkeiten mit den universitären und fachspezifischen Bedingungen, die bereits nach dem ersten Studiensemester sichtbar werden, stark abhängig von der Fächergruppe, in der studiert wird. Zum anderen ist für das Gelingen der Studieneingangsphase das kulturelle Kapital der Herkunftsfamilie von größerer Bedeutung als das ökonomische Kapital. Die Ergebnisse sind gleichermaßen für die Bildungs- wie die Ungleichheitsforschung relevant und erlauben es, Handlungsoptionen zur Gestaltung der Studieneingangsphase abzuleiten.
}},
  author       = {{Mauermeister, Sylvi}},
  pages        = {{390}},
  publisher    = {{BWV – Berliner Wissenschafts Verlag}},
  title        = {{{Eingeschrieben und Geblieben. Herkunftsgruppenspezifische Bedingungen des Studienverbleibs nach der Studieneingangsphase an Universitäten.}}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@techreport{47144,
  author       = {{Schneider, Sebastian and Mauermeister, Sylvi and Aust, Robert and Henke, Justus}},
  isbn         = {{978-3-937573-85-4}},
  pages        = {{114}},
  publisher    = {{Institut für Hochschulforschung (HoF) an der Martin-Luther-Universität}},
  title        = {{{Paralleluniversen des Wissenschaftsmanagements: Ein Vergleich zwischen Hochschulen und außeruniversitären Forschungseinrichtungen.}}},
  volume       = {{119}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{50019,
  abstract     = {{In the COVID-19 pandemic, schooling systems across all levels have been forced into remote teaching dramatically and massively. It is critical to examine how education practitioners and students have responded to the goals and practices of schooling, and the progress of education equity issues in educational institutions against the background of such significant social change. Therefore, this article first focuses on the controversy of equity in the policy of citizen mobilization in times of pandemic, to underline the errors of different pandemic measures. Second, scrutinize the challenges faced by group differences in schooling in the context of the current pandemic from the angle of educational equity. Finally, we urge schooling systems to introduce the principle of inclusion of group differences from the very beginning of education provision. By so doing, the existing conditions of group differences can be recognized and the rights of different groups can be supported.}},
  author       = {{Chen, Shu-Min and Lin-Januszewski, Liang-Wen}},
  issn         = {{1680-6360}},
  journal      = {{教育研究月刊}},
  number       = {{344}},
  pages        = {{051--071}},
  publisher    = {{Angle Publishing Co., Ltd.}},
  title        = {{{疫情下遠距教學對差異群體教育公平的影響之探討}}},
  doi          = {{10.53106/168063602022120344004}},
  volume       = {{344}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{37020,
  author       = {{Fraser, Alec and Knoll, Lisa and Hevenstone, Debra}},
  issn         = {{1096-7494}},
  journal      = {{International Public Management Journal}},
  keywords     = {{Public Administration, Business and International Management}},
  number       = {{3}},
  pages        = {{339–356}},
  publisher    = {{Informa UK Limited}},
  title        = {{{Contested Social Impact Bonds: welfare conventions, conflicts and compromises in five European Active-Labor Market Programs}}},
  doi          = {{10.1080/10967494.2022.2089792}},
  volume       = {{26}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@inbook{37010,
  author       = {{Knoll, Lisa}},
  booktitle    = {{Kapitalismus und Nachhaltigkeit}},
  editor       = {{Neckel, Sighard and Philipp, Degens and Sarah, Lenz}},
  keywords     = {{Klima}},
  pages        = {{177--193}},
  publisher    = {{Campus}},
  title        = {{{Die EU-Taxonomie für nachhaltige Finanzen: Auf dem Weg in den grünen Kapitalismus?}}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{33372,
  abstract     = {{<jats:p>Academics may actively respond to the expectations of the academic status market, which have largely been shaped by the World University Rankings (WURs). This study empirically examines how academics’ citation patterns have changed in response to the rise of an “evaluation environment” in academia. We regard the WURs to be a macro-level trigger for cementing a bibliometric-based evaluation environment in academia. Our analyses of citation patterns in papers published in two higher education journals explicitly considered three distinct periods: the pre-WURs (1990–2003), the period of WURs implementation (2004–2010), and the period of adaption to WURs (2011–2017). We applied the nonparametric Kaplan–Meier method to compare first-citation speeds of papers published across the three periods. We found that not only has first-citation speed become faster, but first-citation probability has also increased following the emergence of the WURs. Applying Cox proportional hazard models to first-citation probabilities, we identified journal impact factors and third-party funding as factors influencing first-citation probability, while other author- and paper-related factors showed limited effects. We also found that the general effects of different factors on first-citation speeds have changed with the emergence of the WURs. The findings expand our understanding of the citation patterns of academics in the rise of WURs and provide practical grounds for research policy as well as higher education policy.</jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Lee, Soo Jeung and Schneijderberg, Christian and Kim, Yangson and Steinhardt, Isabel}},
  issn         = {{2071-1050}},
  journal      = {{Sustainability}},
  keywords     = {{world university rankings, citation, first-citation speed, Minerva, Studies in Higher Education}},
  number       = {{17}},
  publisher    = {{MDPI AG}},
  title        = {{{Have Academics’ Citation Patterns Changed in Response to the Rise of World University Rankings? A Test Using First-Citation Speeds}}},
  doi          = {{10.3390/su13179515}},
  volume       = {{13}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}

@article{36545,
  abstract     = {{Due to the Corona crisis, German Higher Education Institutions had to close their campuses in March and lecturers had to teach online. To understand how the Corona crisis affected students, first this article explains the structural and social inequalities in the German higher education system, using Tinto's (1975; 1997) student engagement theory. Second, the concept of Bergman-Rosamond et al. (2020) is used to analyze the challenges that Corona has raised for students, including current surveys. We found that the closure of the social space campus (and the Corona crisis as a whole) particularly hit hard those students who had previously been affected by (intersectional) inequality. Therefore, to lessen the specific challenges associated with the ad hoc transition to digital studying, the creation of a digital community of learning can help. We demonstrate how such a community can be created by the example seminar, "Digital practices: an autoethnographic observation". During the seminar, students recorded their digital technology use in a journal, and we analyzed the diary entries using the collaborate autoethnography method. The seminar example shows that this method is well suited for the development of a community of learning as it not only places students in the spotlight but as students work together on a topic they get to know each other, and a basis of trust is created through peer-feedback. Therefore, it was important to have a digital space (in this case Mahara) where the exchange could take place. The continuous insight into the students’ "learning status" enabled the lecturer to promote the learning and provide individual assistance for the students.}},
  author       = {{Steinhardt, Isabel}},
  journal      = {{ISA Pedagogy Series}},
  keywords     = {{Intersectionality, inequality, gender, diversity, higher-education, crisis}},
  number       = {{1}},
  pages        = {{42--59}},
  publisher    = {{International Sociology Association}},
  title        = {{{Students in the spotlight: Using collaborative autoethnography to build a community of learning in the Corona crisis}}},
  volume       = {{1}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}

@techreport{36551,
  abstract     = {{The call for free access to research data and materials is becoming louder and louder from the political and scientific communities in Germany. More and more researchers are facing demands to open up qualitative research data for scientific purposes. They often have a general interest in sharing their data, but are unsure how to proceed. This handout was developed to provide an initial introduction to opening and sharing qualitative data. It was developed at a workshop held in Berlin in January 2020, organized by the research group „Digitization of Science“ of the Weizenbaum Institute, together with its associate researcher Dr. Isabel Steinhardt from the University of Kassel. The workshop involved staff from German research data centers as well as mentees and mentors from the Fellow Program Open Science who already have experience with Open Science, qualitative research, and interdisciplinary research. The handout is addressed primarily to qualitatively researching scientists in Germany. For this reason, it was initially written in German. One year later, we have now decided to translate the handout into English as well. The reasons are twofold: first, we want to make it accessible to researchers in Germany with little knowledge of German. Second, we also want to give interested people outside Germany an insight into the German system and the German discussion about opening up and sharing qualitative data. Due to the objectives and the history of its development, the handout focuses on the German context. This includes the literature references and further sources, and the references to research data centers as well as legal issues. We have deliberately not included a contextualization of the German situation in international discussions in order to keep the handout as short as possible.}},
  author       = {{Steinhardt, Isabel and Fischer, Caroline and Heimstädt, Maximilian and Hirsbrunner, Simon David and Ikiz-Akinci, Dilek and Kressin, Lisa and Kretzer, Susanne and Möllenkamp, Andreas and Portzelt, Maike and Rahal, Rima-Maria and Schimmler, Sonja and Wilke, René and Wünsche, Hannes}},
  pages        = {{20}},
  publisher    = {{Weizenbaum Institute for the Networked Society - The German Internet Institu}},
  title        = {{{Opening up and Sharing Data from Qualitative Research: A Primer}}},
  doi          = {{10.34669/WI.WS/17}},
  volume       = {{17}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}

@inbook{37015,
  author       = {{Knoll, Lisa}},
  booktitle    = {{Der Staat in der Großen Transformation}},
  editor       = {{Sturn, Richard and Klüh, Ulrich}},
  pages        = {{193--218}},
  publisher    = {{Metropolis}},
  title        = {{{Nachhaltigkeitsmärkte im Vergleich. Zur Transformation von Staatlichkeit}}},
  volume       = {{Band 19}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}

@article{45252,
  author       = {{Krollmann, Rabea and Schmidt, Rebecca and Spill, Annika}},
  journal      = {{blog interdisziplinäre geschlechterforschung}},
  title        = {{{Grenzüberschreitung und Distanzierung – Geschlechterforschung in universitären Toiletten}}},
  doi          = {{10.17185/GENDER/20210126}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}

@inbook{51310,
  author       = {{Haker, Christoph and Otterspeer, Lukas}},
  booktitle    = {{recht extrem? Dynamiken in zivilgesellschaftlichen Räumen}},
  editor       = {{Sehmer, Julian and Simon, Stephanie and Ten Elsen, Jennifer and Thiele, Felix}},
  isbn         = {{9783658325596}},
  pages        = {{249--273}},
  publisher    = {{Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden}},
  title        = {{{Die epistemische Dimension der Neuen Rechten. Von einer Kritik des Wissenschafts- und Bildungsverständnisses der Neuen Rechten zu einer Selbstkritik}}},
  doi          = {{10.1007/978-3-658-32560-2_14}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}

@inbook{51309,
  author       = {{Haker, Christoph and Otterspeer, Lukas}},
  booktitle    = {{Dürfen Lehrer ihre Meinung sagen? Demokratie, Bildung und der Streit über das Kontroversitätsgebot}},
  editor       = {{Drerup, Johannes and Zulaica y Mugica, Miguel and Yacek, Douglas}},
  pages        = {{208--227}},
  publisher    = {{Kohlhammer}},
  title        = {{{Bedingte Autonomie, nicht Neutralität – „Neutrale Schulen Hamburg“ (AfD) und ihre Kritik}}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}

@article{51315,
  abstract     = {{<jats:p>Critique has run out of steam – this diagnosis by Bruno Latour is crucial for the “Manifesto for post-critical education” as well as for the on_education issue “The Fatique of Critique?”. With this essay, we contradict Latour's diagnosis. Latour’s polemic against critique is based firstly on a questionable diagnosis of our time and secondly on a general and programmatic critique of sociology. Against that, we bring out two main points. The first insight highlights that change is initially dependent on variations that can only arise from a negation of the existing. The second insight comes from the sociology of critique, which paradoxically sees success in the failure of critique.</jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Haker, Christoph and Otterspeer, Lukas}},
  issn         = {{2571-7855}},
  journal      = {{On Education. Journal for Research and Debate}},
  number       = {{9}},
  title        = {{{Against Latour – On the Questionable Foundations of Post-Critical Pedagogy}}},
  doi          = {{10.17899/on_ed.2020.9.16}},
  volume       = {{3}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}

@inproceedings{51313,
  author       = {{Haker, Christoph and Otterspeer, Lukas}},
  booktitle    = {{Erziehungswirklichkeiten in Zeiten von Angst und Verunsicherung}},
  editor       = {{Meseth, Wolfgang and Zirfas, Jörg and Thompson, Christiane and Fuchs, Thorsten}},
  publisher    = {{Beltz Juventa}},
  title        = {{{Empirische Bildungsforschung als Rechtfertigung rechtspopulistischer Angst. Zur gegenwartsdiagnostischen Verwendung von Large-Scale-Assessments}}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}

@inproceedings{51314,
  author       = {{Haker, Christoph and Otterspeer, Lukas}},
  booktitle    = {{Gewissheit. Beiträge und Debatten zum 3. Sektionskongress der Wissenssoziologie}},
  editor       = {{Dimbath, Oliver and Pfadenhauer, Michaela}},
  publisher    = {{Beltz Juventa}},
  title        = {{{Kritik rechtspopulistischer Gewissheiten. Für die Öffnung von Kontingenzen moderner Gesellschaftsordnungen}}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}

@article{51311,
  author       = {{Haker, Christoph and Otterspeer, Lukas}},
  journal      = {{BEHEMOTH. A Journal on Civilisation}},
  pages        = {{31--47}},
  title        = {{{Die Beweglichkeit der Kritik: zur Wechselbeziehung von Kontextualisierung und Objektivierung im digitalen Zeitalter}}},
  doi          = {{10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2021.14.2.1058}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}

@inbook{51312,
  author       = {{Haker, Christoph}},
  booktitle    = {{Lebendige Theorie}},
  editor       = {{Karcher, Martin and Rödel, Sales}},
  pages        = {{267--279}},
  publisher    = {{textem}},
  title        = {{{Die Freiheit, ein*e Andere*r zu werden. Eine Bricolage zur Praxis soziologischer Theorie.}}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}