@article{62142, author = {{Mildorf, Jarmila}}, issn = {{ 1387-6740 }}, journal = {{Narrative Inquiry}}, number = {{2}}, pages = {{207 -- 215 }}, publisher = {{John Benjamins}}, title = {{{Life Storytelling across Media and Contexts }}}, doi = {{https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.25041.mil}}, volume = {{35}}, year = {{2025}}, } @article{62143, author = {{Mildorf, Jarmila}}, issn = {{1387-6740}}, journal = {{Narrative Inquiry}}, number = {{2}}, pages = {{337 -- 358 }}, title = {{{ Soundscapes and Storytelling in Literary Interviews: Audionarratological Perspectives}}}, doi = {{ https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.24083.mil }}, volume = {{35}}, year = {{2025}}, } @misc{62141, booktitle = {{Narrative Inquiry}}, editor = {{Mildorf, Jarmila and Foniokova, Zuzana}}, issn = {{1387-6740}}, number = {{2}}, pages = {{207--358}}, publisher = {{John Benjamins}}, title = {{{Life Storytelling across Media and Contexts }}}, volume = {{35}}, year = {{2025}}, } @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}}, } @misc{62173, author = {{Kokew, Stephan Matthias}}, title = {{{Zum Schreiben mit der Hand}}}, 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}}, } @inbook{62205, author = {{Rumlich, Dominik and Matz, Frauke}}, booktitle = {{Grenzen, Grenzräume, Entgrenzungen}}, editor = {{Kulovics, Nina and Mentz, Olivier and Raith, Thomas}}, pages = {{507--508}}, publisher = {{wbv}}, title = {{{Nachwuchs-Café: Symposium zur interdisziplinären Vernetzung von Doktorand/ innen und Postdocs}}}, doi = {{10.3278/9783763977932}}, year = {{2025}}, } @inbook{62202, author = {{Rumlich, Dominik}}, booktitle = {{Leistungsmessung, Evaluation und Feedback im Fremdsprachenunterricht}}, editor = {{Vogt, Karin and Rossa, Henning}}, pages = {{35--41}}, publisher = {{Klett Kallmeyer}}, title = {{{Reliabilität}}}, doi = {{10.5555/9783772717772}}, 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}}, } @misc{62233, author = {{Huybrechts, Yves}}, booktitle = {{Sehepunkte}}, title = {{{Hugo De Schepper: 'A latere principis u de su theniente general'. De regeringsraden naast landsheren en landvoogden in de Habsburgse Nederlanden: Leden, instellingen en algemene politiek, 1577/1580-1609, Leuven: Peeters 2023}}}, volume = {{25}}, year = {{2025}}, } @article{62265, author = {{Schroeter-Wittke, Harald}}, journal = {{Praktische Theologie}}, number = {{4}}, pages = {{254--255}}, title = {{{Gott, heilger Schöpfer aller Stern (EG 3). Zum 500. Todestag von Thomas Müntzer (1489-1525)}}}, volume = {{60}}, year = {{2025}}, } @inbook{62279, author = {{Schlieper, Hendrik}}, booktitle = {{Bodies, Remedies, Policies. From Early Modern Chronicles of the Indies to Covid-19 Narratives}}, editor = {{Radlwimmer, Romana}}, pages = {{253--270}}, publisher = {{De Gruyter}}, title = {{{Crime Fever. Colonial Pathologies in Émile Zola’s Thérèse Raquin (1867)}}}, volume = {{1}}, year = {{2025}}, } @book{61919, author = {{Staffel, Florian}}, isbn = {{9783111698304}}, publisher = {{De Gruyter}}, title = {{{Zwischen Konkurrenz und Kooperation}}}, doi = {{10.1515/9783111698960}}, year = {{2025}}, } @inbook{61920, author = {{Staffel, Florian}}, booktitle = {{Security Strategies in International Business History}}, isbn = {{9781003563273}}, publisher = {{Routledge}}, title = {{{Cooperation and Catching up}}}, doi = {{10.4324/9781003563273-10}}, year = {{2025}}, } @misc{60054, author = {{Staffel, Florian}}, booktitle = {{Business History }}, pages = {{1--2}}, title = {{{Neue Perspektiven der Unternehmensgeschichte [New Perspectives in Business History]: Edited by Nina Kleinöder, Christian Marx, Boris Gehlen, Juliane Czierpka, Brill/Schöningh, Paderborn, 2024}}}, doi = {{10.1080/00076791.2025.2508068}}, year = {{2025}}, } @misc{62287, author = {{Priesching, Nicole}}, booktitle = {{Theologische Revue}}, number = {{11}}, title = {{{Christoph Haar (Hg.): Slavery, Law and Religion in the Early Modern Period (Law and Religion in the Early Modern Period/ Recht und Religion in der Frühen Neuzeit. 7). Leiden, Boston 2024}}}, doi = {{10.17879/THRV-2025-9104}}, volume = {{121}}, year = {{2025}}, }