This article presents theoretical and empirical insights into how Ljubljana is integrated into the discourse of a creative city through top-down discourses and practices, and how bottom-up activists and stakeholders actively position themselves towards this development. The phenomenon described is an example for the realization of European cultural policy in a local context on the geopolitical and imaginative periphery of “EU-rope”: Slovenia.

Die Broschüre enthält Angaben zur demografischen Entwicklung im Freistaat Sachsen sowie Ausführungen zum Generationenpreis 2019: Jury, Wettbewerbsverfahren, Preisverleihung, Informationen zu den Preisträgern, Fotos sowie Angaben zu den einzelnen Projekten.

Die Befragung der Erstsemester im Lehramtsstudium an der Universität Leipzig reiht sich in eine längere Tradition von Befragungen zur Studienmotivation im Lehramt ein. Sie kommt auch nicht zu grundlegend anderen Ergebnissen in der quantitativen Erhebung von Faktoren. Jedoch zeigen die qualitativen Auswertungen der offenen Fragen einige Nuancen und Spezifika auf, die in anderen Studien nicht in dieser Weise zum Ausdruck kommen. Durch die Art der Fragestellung und ergänzende Erhebungen wurde versucht, den Grad der sozialen Erwünschtheit zu reduzieren.

Lebenssituationen von älteren Frauen unterscheiden sich häufig von denen gleichaltriger Männer. Gravierend dabei ist, dass Frauen in weitaus höherem Maße von Partnerverlust betroffen sind und in dessen Folge meist allein leben. Dadurch sind es in erster Linie auch Frauen, die sich mit dem kritischen Lebensereignis, dem Tod des nahestehendsten Menschen, auseinandersetzen müssen, die Trauer bewältigen und sich in einer neuen Lebenssituation orientieren sowie mit ihr arrangieren müssen. Hierfür müssen auch die Rolle als alleinstehende Frau reflektiert und neue Lebensentwürfe etabliert werden. Ziel der medienwissenschaftlichen Studie ist es, verstehend nachzuvollziehen, welche Bedeutung Medien und ihre Inhalte für ältere Frauen nach dem Tod des Partners haben und welchen Beitrag sie sowohl für die Reflexion vergangener Erlebnisse und Erfahrungen als auch für die Auseinandersetzung mit der neuen Lebenssituation leisten können.:1. Einleitung 2. Annäherung an ein wenig erforschtes Feld – Forschungsliteratur 3. Theoretischer Rahmen 3.1 Alter(n) 3.1.2 Strukturwandel des Alters 3.1.3. Spezifika weiblichen Alter(n)s 3.1.3. Exkurs: Die Rolle der Frau in der DDR 3.2. Identität 3.2.1. Identität als Patchwork und erzähltes Selbst (Heiner Keupp et al.) 3.2.2. Die Identität als Paaridentität (Maja S. Maier) 3.2.3. Statuspassage Partnerverlust: Trauer und die Bedeutung des Partnerverlusts für die Identität 3.2.4. Die Rolle der verwitweten Frau in der Gesellschaft 3.2.5. Exkurs: Der gesellschaftliche Umgang mit Sterben und Tod 3.3 Medien – Alter(n) – Identität 3.3.1 Die Mediennutzung von Erwachsenen im höheren Lebensalter – ein Überblick über die Ergebnisse quantitativer Forschung 3.3.2 Die Bedeutung von Medien für ältere Menschen 3.3.3 Die Bedeutung von Medien für verwitwete Frauen (Auseinandersetzung mit dem Partnerverlust und der neuen Lebenssituation) 4. Empirische Zugänge 4.1 Methodologischer Rahmen und methodisches Vorgehen 4.1.1 Methodologischer Rahmen: Qualitative Methodologie und ,Kontextuelles Verstehen der Medienaneignung‘ 4.1.2 Methodisches Vorgehen und Anlage der Studie 4.1.2.1 Zielgruppe 4.1.2.2 Feldzugang 4.1.2.3 Datenerhebung: das narrative Interview 4.1.2.4 Übertragung, Aufbereitung und Auswertung der Daten 4.2 Ergebnisse 4.2.1 Falldarstellungen 4.2.1.1 Frau D. – „Ich könnte also auf das Fernsehen verzichten, locker, locker, aber auf Bücher nicht.“ 4.2.1.2 Frau J. – „Nimm deine Courage zusammen und versuche, aus dem Loch wieder rauszusteigen!“ 4.2.1.3 Frau N. – „Ein Mann, der will einen Braten haben sonntags.“ 4.2.1.4 Frau P. – „ich war dann immer schon ein bisschen selbstständig.“ 4.2.2 Fallübergreifender Vergleich 4.2.2.1 Medialer Umgang mit partnerverlustbedingten Veränderungen der Lebenssituation 4.2.2.2 Herstellen von Kontinuität und Nähe 4.2.2.3 Thematische Auseinandersetzung mit der Statuspassage des Partnerverlusts und der eigenen Lebenssituation 4.2.2.4 Sozialer Vergleich 4.2.2.5 Stimmungsregulierung 4.2.2.6 Kompensation von Einsamkeit 4.2.2.7 Veränderte Wahrnehmung und Bewertung von Medieninhalten nach dem Tod des Partners 4.3 Ergebnisdiskussion 5. Zusammenfassung und Ausblick Literatur

Against the backdrop of repeated political violence between Israel and different belligerents in the first and second decades of the 21st century (2003-2017) and by employing a social-psychological theoretical framework, this dissertation explores the effects of political violence on Israelis ’ social and national identities. The findings support the discussion of the social consequences of political violence in Israel, be them increased cohesiveness among different social groups (ethnic minority and majority) or social fragmentation and increased polarization between other groups (rich vs. poor or political right vs. left). Whereas Social Identity Theory constitutes the theoretical base for the explored hypotheses, Israeli social place-making practices are also discussed. Topic Whereas a vast amount of literature has been dedicated to the effects of exposure to violence on individuals and groups for over a century, it mainly focuses on type, duration or location of such violence. Since the relevant literature seems to consider the occurrence of political violence a unitary phenomenon, it consistently fails to attend to a most important factor- the aftermath of such violence. By overlooking the discrepancy in violence’ aftermath and by neglecting any analysis derived from it, I argue that the comprehensive literature examining the social effects of political violence and post-conflict societies is missing a vital piece of the puzzle. Accordingly, the contribution of this dissertation to the conflict literature is twofold: first, it disaggregates the aftermaths of two common forms of political violence, wars and military operations and explores their effects on individuals, groups and the Israeli society as a whole. Second, it closely examines some of the central assumptions of Social Identity Theory, one of the most comprehensive theories of group relations in the context of concrete political violence. It does so while paying special attention to highly fascinating identity components and basic social building blocks: national identification, social trust and social rifts in Israel. Methods The dissertation employs various methodologies: First, a macro-level, statistical examination of the relationship between different war outcomes and socio-national identities was conducted using two web-based experiments. Second, a qualitative analysis of Zionism in Europe and in Israel’s early years complemented a discussion of Israeli narratives of belonging, memory politics, ingredients of national pride and contemporary social challenges. Third, a quantitative micro-level analysis of the effect of successful and unsuccessful military operation on the Israeli society was conducted. The latter utilized a unique, self-compiled database, following an extensive manual content analysis , alongside data originating in annual social surveys conducted in Israel by the Guttmann institute. Knowledge gained The first empirical chapter (chapter four) was set to establish the underlying assumption upon which the dissertation is based; Namely, that different outcomes of political violence have distinctive effects on individual identities. In this chapter, predictions derived from Social Identity Theory were put into an initial macro-level analysis through two original web experiments. The latter explored the effect of different war outcomes (distinguishing between victory, defeat, stalemate and a negotiated agreement) on social and national identities . Whereas the research supported the underlying hypothesis according to which distinctive war outcomes are associated with distinctive effects when national identification is concerned, no significant differences between war outcomes were found in relation to individuals’ social identities. These results are consistent with Social Identity Theory and the self-esteem protection/enhancement strategies derived from it (BIRGing and CORFing ); the significant differences between war outcomes (mainly between victories and defeats) are explained by individuals’ tendencies to share in the glory of a successful other (to BIRG) following a positively evaluated war outcome, and to distance themselves from an unsuccessful group (to CORF), following a negatively valued war outcome. The non-significant results concerning social identities are consistent with Simmel’s conflict hypothesis suggesting that conflicting interactions strengthen the internal cohesion of pre-existing groups. In this regard, it appears as though individuals react to the conflict itself whereas its aftermath did not play any significant role. The overall outcomes obtained thus laid the foundations for an extensive micro-level analysis of the effect of outcomes of political violence on socio-national identities among Israelis. Chapter five refocused the attention on the state of Israel and the Israeli society. It provided a historical analysis of Jewish-Israeli nationalism, rooted in the Zionistic movement in Europe in the late 19th century, which preceded the establishment of the state of Israel. The analysis centered on nation-building processes which took place in Israel’s first years, namely, the constructing of a new Jewish-Israeli identity by means of institutionalizing the Hebrew language as an official language, integration of new immigrants and the role of the Israeli defense force as a melting pot. The study of the origins of Israeli national pride, both in the country’s first years and in contemporary times, complemented the discussion as it is entwined with both Jewish and Israeli identities. The analysis suggests that while Israel was established as a democracy, it was never a space of ethnic diversity. As the national home for world jury based on a Zionist narrative and highly influenced by the Holocaust, no plurality of ethnic discourses existed in Israel in over 50 years. The research describes the way state-sponsored dominant Jewish and Zionist narratives morphed into a uni-dimensional Israeli identity. This, in turn, prevented Arab-Israelis, the largest ethnic minority in Israel, from being incorporated into the Israeli society. Recurrent political violence as part of the on-going Israeli Palestinian conflict further contributed both to the exclusion of Arab-Israelis from the original Israeli narrative and to the bonding of Jewish Israelis. It was only in the last decades and against the backdrop of significant changes endured by the Israeli society that place-making processes were put on the political and social agenda. Whereas nation and community-building processes are still prominent in contemporary Israel, they now exist side by side a vibrant and vocal discourse of post-Zionism, Jewish secularism and “Israelism” which is not based on Judaism but on an Israeli cultural narrative. Persistent political violence that contributed to social fragmentation in Israel’s first decades alongside cultural commonalities between Jewish and Arab Israelis now begin to serve as a common denominator in contemporary Israeli society. If those continue to resonate among Israelis, it is thus not implausible that they would eventually substitute Judaism and Zionism as social unifiers in the process of creating a “same boat” society. Under such circumstances and with diminishing boundaries between Arab and Jewish Israelis, the former will no longer be construed as an “out-group” by the Jewish majority in Israel. Nonetheless, drifting away from the original Jewish integrator and common factor of more than 75% of the country’s population may threaten the Jewish communities of Israel with social fragmentation. Consequently, the study of the effect of political violence on both Jewish and non-Jewish communities in Israel set forth in the upcoming chapters is of great importance for the future of Israel. Chapter six set out to examine the relationship between Israelis and their nation-state following different outcomes of Israeli military operations. Special attention was paid to changes in levels of national pride among Jewish Israelis, Arab Israelis and new immigrants across a tempestuous ten-year period (2003-2013) and in conjunction with successful and unsuccessful conclusions of Israeli warfare, as perceived by the Israeli public. Using a regressing analysis of data originating in social surveys, the research tested the validity of predictions derived from Social Identity Theory in both the individual and the social levels. Results indicate that the effect of recurrent warfare on national identification among Israelis is highly mitigated by the perceived outcome of such warfare as well as by sub-group membership (ethnic/social majority vs. minority). Consistent with Social Identity Theory, an Israeli military success was highly associated with increased national identification for the general Israeli population. However, contrary to conventional wisdom and to the “minority hypothesis ”, the same effect was also registered among Israeli Arabs. While Israeli Arabs, the largest ethnic minority in Israel, might share neither the country’s collective Jewish narrative nor its Zionist ethos they are Israeli citizens who nonetheless feel a sense of belonging to the state of Israel . As such, they are a part of a larger in-group which shares personal and economic interests. Those are equally and existentially threatened when Israel is experiencing unsuccessful military operations. This positivistic evidence suggests that Israeli Arabs’ identification with the state of Israel lies in the area of “Israeliness that is beyond Jewishness”. The analysis also affirmed the existence of an “embedded identity effect” concerning national identification among Jewish Israelis; Israeli Jews, the majority ethnic group in Israel, maintained high national-identification levels regardless of the way the warfare was concluded. This finding is unsurprising considering Israel’s Jewish character and the circumstances of its creation. Whilst societies subjected to external threat may unite in the face of a common enemy, chapter seven sought to examine whether this is true in the Israeli context and if so, whether the outcomes of political violence mitigate the effect. Whereas a large scholarship examined the effect of violence on social cohesion and political tolerance in Israel, it mostly focused on Arab-Israelis and immigrant. The research presented in chapter seven studied the effect of discrepant outcomes of Israeli warfare on social cohesion, social tensions and trust between the various communities of Israel (both Jewish and non-Jewish). The research focused on the general level of social trust in society alongside six specific social rifts, prevalent in present-day Israel: the intercommunal rift (between the Israeli Jewish community and the Israeli-Arab community), the Jewish intercommunal rift (between Jews of Ashkenazi and Sephardic/Mizrachi origins), the religious rift (between orthodox and non-orthodox Jewish communities), the ideological/political rift , the socio-economic rift and the nativist tension (between native Israelis and new immigrants). Results revealed a highly significant effect of Israeli military success concerning all six social rifts and a very mild effect concerning social trust. For all but one rift (the Jewish inter-communal rift), successful termination of Israeli warfare was associated with an increased social tension between the different communities in Israel (though in different levels of significance). This unfortunate finding which points to increased fractionalization among the different communities in Israel following Israeli military successes is in line with several other studies examining the effects of political violence on political exclusionism in Israel. Whereas the literature supports the notion that in time of crisis social cohesion increases, it is not surprising to find increased tensions following military successes rather than failures. An exception to the observed rise in social tensions in Israel is the increased cohesion between Ashkenzi and Sephardic/Mizrachi Jews (the Jewish intercommunal rift). The results support the conclusion that the Jewish population, the majority ethnic group in Israel, is united behind the idea that Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people (and possibly a necessary refuge from rising anti-Semitism around the globe). A decrease in Jewish intercommunal tension following Israeli victories supports the cohesive potential of in-group pride and is consistent with the Jewish foundation and Zionistic narrative of Jewish Israelis and with the existence of an embedded Jewish-Israeli identity . As for the national level, a “rally around the flag” effect is a term used to describe the uniting power of common threats. An underlying motive for this surge in national unity is linked to patriotism, as individuals respond to threats by identifying with their in-group . However, when the crisis is over, politics and society quickly revert to normal and existing social rifts resurface. Whereas an unsuccessful termination of an Israeli military operation is likely to induce a “rally around the flag” effect, a military success demonstrates the opposite effect. Consequently, the seemingly rising tensions between various communities in Israel observed following an Israeli military success is consistent with a reverse “rally around the flag” effect and reflects the fractionalized nature of the Israeli society. Another explanation to the observed trend of increased social tensions following a successful warfare may be directly linked to the experience of in-group guilt or shame despite a successful outcome. Such gilt might lead to rising tension between those who are more/less supportive of the outcome, or perhaps feel that more should have been done to achieve a more solid outcome. Finally, the increased tensions may speak to the theorized dynamic at the heart of the present and similar works that reflects the more destructive side of pride and in-group glorification. According to that scholarship, out-group hate can even extend to people perceived to be “hostile minorities ”. Whilst the increase in intercommunal tension is expected and in line with the results of similar studies examining the effect of violence or stress on the relationships between Jewish and Arab Israelis, the increase in religious tensions, socio-economic tension and ideological tensions could be reflective of a second circle of out-group hate; Supporters of the political left alongside less observant and wealthier elements of the Israeli society , may experience in-group guilt and possibly shame despite the perceived successful outcome, thus distancing themselves from those experiencing pride at the outcome. The effect of education, in particular higher education, in reducing social tensions and increasing social trust emerges as another important finding of this research. Whether education provides a sense of optimism and control over one’s life that allows people to trust, or whether it provides opportunities for contact and networks’ creation with others, the study confirms the potential role of education in reducing social tension even in a highly diverse and conflict-torn Israeli society. Moreover, since social divisions may be exploited by political entrepreneurs, and since increasing social tensions might result in the erosion of social capital, raising the alarm would be the first step in directly addressing such important issues (for example, by policy making). Lastly, any serious peace negotiation with a Palestinian leadership would require difficult concessions to be made by both parties. As such, the way towards a peaceful conclusion of the Israeli Palestinian conflict would inevitably depend, among others, on the social strength and cohesion of the Israeli civil society.:Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Background and Motivation ................................................................................. 7 1.1.1 National Identification ............................................................................ 10 1.1.2 Social Trust ............................................................................................. 14 1.1.3 Focusing on Israel ................................................................................... 16 1.2 Prologue ............................................................................................................. 17 1.3 Contribution Scope ............................................................................................. 18 1.4 Overview of Aims and Chapters ........................................................................ 20 2. Theoretical Framework: Conflict Research, National Identification and Social Trust Part I: Conflict Research 2.1 Conflict Research ................................................................................................. 24 2.1.1 General Theory and Practices ................................................................ 25 2.1.2 Contemporary Trends and Challenges ................................................... 26 2.1.3 Looking Forward ................................................................................... 27 Part II: Belonging, Identity and the Nation 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Identity Formation ................................................................................................ 28 Social Belonging and Group Identification ......................................................... 29 The Sense of Belonging, Nationhood and Statehood .......................................... 30 2.4.1 What is a Nation? ................................................................................... 30 2.4.2 National Identification ........................................................................... 32 2.4.3 Hierarchies of National Belonging ........................................................ 33 2.4.4 The Nation State .................................................................................... 34 2.4.5 Nationhood and Statehood ..................................................................... 35 Conflict Patriotic Affinity: Conceptual Outlines ............................................................. 38 2.6.1 Between Patriotism and Nationalism ..................................................... 41 Coping With Threatened Social Identity ........................................................... 42 and Group Identification ........................................................................ 36 2 3 2.7.1 Social Identity Theory ......................................................................... 42 2.7.2 Basking In Reflected Glory ................................................................. 45 2.7.3 Cutting Off Reflected Failure .............................................................. 46 2.7.4 Self-Embedded Social Identity ............................................................ 48 2.7.5 National Identity of Ethnic Minorities ................................................ 50 Part III: Social Trust and Cohesiveness 2.8 Social Capital and Cohesion .............................................................................. 52 2.9 Unraveling the Riddle of Social Trust ............................................................... 54 2.9.1 Threats to Social Trust and Social Cohesion ....................................... 56 3. Methodology 3.1 Macro-level Analysis ......................................................................................... 60 3.1.1 Appropriateness ..................................................................................... 60 3.1.2 A Short History of Web Experiments .................................................... 61 3.1.3 Web Experiments: Advantages and Challenges .................................... 63 3.2. Micro-level analysis ........................................................................................... 69 3.2.1 Focusing on The state of Israel and Israeli Society ............................... 69 Contemporary Israeli Media .................................................................. 72 Military Censorship ............................................................................... 75 3.2.2 Episodes of High Intensity Political Violence ....................................... 75 3.2.3 Perceived Outcomes of Political Violence ............................................ 77 3.2.4 Relevant Issues Concerning the Use of Survey Data ............................ 78 Vague Concepts .................................................................................... 78 Categorizing Identities .......................................................................... 80 3.2.5 The Israeli Democracy Index ................................................................ 82 3.2.6 Control Variables ................................................................................... 83 3.3 Framing in Communication and Their Effect on Public Opinion ...................... 84 3.3.1 The Use of Emphasis and Equivalence Framing in Shaping Public Opinion .................................................................................................. 85 3.3.2 The Effect of Frames in Shaping Individual Perceptions ...................... 87 3.3.3 Assessing a Frame’s Strength in Political Settings ................................ 88 4. The Ending matters: National and Social Identification Following Discrepant War Outcomes 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 90 4.2 Experimental Study I ........................................................................................... 93 4.2.1 Procedure and Experimental Design ..................................................... 93 4.2.2 Measures ................................................................................................ 95 4.3.3 Results .................................................................................................... 95 4.2.4 Discussion .............................................................................................. 99 Seriousness Check ................................................................................. 99 National Identity .................................................................................. 100 Social Identity ...................................................................................... 102 4.3 Experimental Study II ......................................................................................... 103 4.3.1 Using video Vs. Text in Experimental Research ................................. 103 4.3.2 Procedure and Experimental Design .................................................... 104 4.3.3 Measures .............................................................................................. 105 4.3.4 Results .................................................................................................. 106 4.3.5 Discussion ............................................................................................ 109 Seriousness Check ............................................................................... 109 National Identity .................................................................................. 109 4.4 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 110 4.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 111 5. Focusing on the State of Israel and Israeli Society 5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 114 5.2 Jewish Nationalism and the Zionist Movement in Europe .............................. 114 5.3 Zionism, National Identity and Hebrew Culture Following the Establishment of The State of Israel ....................................................................................... 118 5.3.1 The Israeli Defense Forces .................................................................. 119 Serving in the Israeli Defense Forces .................................................. 120 Education, Socialization and Nation Building ..................................... 121 The Effect of the IDF on the Israeli Society ........................................ 123 5.3.2 Sport as an Integrative Tool for Shaping Israeli Collective Identity ... 129 5.4 The Jewish and Democratic Nature of the State of Israel ................................ 132 4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5 Current Challenges to Contemporary “Israeliness” ........................................ 134 5.5.1 Ethnic-religious Classification of Israelis- Between Citizenship and Nationality ........................................................................................... 136 5.5.2 Israeli Nationalist Particularism ........................................................... 137 Israeli Patriotism and Ingredients of Israeli National Pride ............................. 140 5.6.1 Tzedakah, Gemilut Hasadim and Tikun Olam ..................................... 141 5.6.2 Mashav ................................................................................................. 142 5.6.3 Operation “Good Neighbor” ................................................................ 144 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 148 6. Together We Stand? Perceived Outcomes of Political Violence and National Pride 7. 6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 150 6.2 Hypotheses ...................................................................................................... 151 6.3 Data, Measures and Method ........................................................................... 153 6.3.1 Focusing on Israel .............................................................................. 153 6.3.2 Military Operations ............................................................................ 154 6.3.3 Survey Measures: National Identification ......................................... 155 6.3.4 Perceived Outcome of Military Operation ......................................... 157 6.3.5 Control Variables ............................................................................... 158 6.4 Findings and Discussion ................................................................................ 159 6.4.1 Preliminary Findings .......................................................................... 159 6.4.2 Disaggregating the Israeli Society ..................................................... 163 6.4.3 Interaction Analysis ........................................................................... 164 6.5 Robustness Checks ......................................................................................... 169 6.5.1 Israel’s General Situation ................................................................... 170 6.5.2 Proximity to the Center of Violence .................................................. 171 6.6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 172 In Us We Trust? The Effect of Military Operations on Social Cleavages and Social Cohesion in Israel 7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 174 7.2 Hypothesis ....................................................................................................... 175 7.3 7.4 6 Data, Measures and Method ............................................................................ 179 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.3.4 The Israeli Society in Context ............................................................ 179 Military Operations ............................................................................ 181 Perceived Levels of Tension and Trust in the Israeli Society ........... 183 Perceived Outcomes of Israeli Military Operations .......................... 185 Control Variables .............................................................................. 185 7.3.5 Findings and Discussion .................................................................................. 186 7.4.1 7.4.2 7.4.3 Preliminary Findings ......................................................................... 187 The Effect of Individual Level and Country Level Variables on Social Tensions and Social Trust ....................................................... 189 Examining the Effect of Israeli Military Operation on Inter-group Tensions ............................................................................................. 193 Exploring the Rise and Fall of Social Trust ...................................... 197 7.4.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 200 7.5 8. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 203 8.1 Limitations ...................................................................................................... 210 8.2 Going forward: Ideas for Future Research ...................................................... 213 8.3 Final remarks/Epilogue ................................................................................... 215 9. References ................................................................................................................ 218 10. List of Figures .......................................................................................................... 254 Appendices A. The Evolution of Conflict Research in the 20th Century ................................. 255 B. Supplementary Material Chapter Four ............................................................ 268 B.1 Experiment I .......................................................................................... 268 B.2 Experiment II ......................................................................................... 274 B.3 Witnessing a Real Conflict as a Potential Covariate ............................. 287 C. Supplementary Material and Robustness Checks, Chapter Six ....................... 288 D. Supplementary Material and Robustness Checks, Chapter Seven .................. 308

25 Jahre nach dem Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion sind aus einem unitären Hochschulsystem 15 einzigartige nationale Systeme hervorgegangen. Deren Entwicklung wurde von je eigenen ökonomischen, kulturellen und politischen Kräften beeinflusst und geprägt, sowohl nationalen wie internationalen Ursprungs (Johnstone and Bain 2002). Die vorliegende Doktorarbeit untersucht die Veränderungen der Governance von Hochschulsystemen der drei postsowjetischen Staaten Russland, Kasachstan und Moldau über den Zeitraum von 1991 bis 2015, analysiert, zu welchem Grad diese Entwicklungen einem Prozess der Konvergenz hin zu einem „globalen Modell“ oder einem „postsowjetischen Modell“ folgen und formuliert Hypothesen über die treibenden Kräfte und Pfadabhängigkeiten, welche auf nationalem, regionalen und globaler Ebene diese Entwicklungen befördert, gehemmt oder auf idiosynkratische Art und Weise geprägt haben. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass global propagierte Governanceinstrumente – wie z.B. Globalbudgets, erweiterte Befugnisse der Hochschulleitung, externe Qualitätssicherung, Stakeholdergovernancegremien – in allen drei untersuchten Ländern Verbreitung finden und ein Prozess der Konvergenz hin zu einem „global Modell“ der Hochschulgovernance stattfindet. Gleichzeitig zeigen die Ergebnisse, dass die spezifischen Eigenarten der nationalen Governancearrangements durch die Einführung dieser neuen Instrumente in der Regel nicht ersetzt werden und dem Bestehenden stattdessen als zusätzliche Ebenen hinzugefügt werden. Wo die Logiken der neuen mit den alten Strukturen kollidieren, zeigt sich, dass sich die tradierten Strukturen und Prozesse in der Regel durchsetzen. Zudem zeigt sich, dass die Governancearrangements der drei untersuchten Länder eine große Zahl spezieller Eigenschaften teilen, durch die sie sich systematisch von jenem propagierten globalen Modell abheben. Jenes „Postsowjetische Modell“ der Hochschulgovernance zeichnet sich durch dominante Rolle des Staates, Hierarchie als primäre und legitime Form der Governance sowie einen geringen Grad an Vertrauen zwischen den zentralen Akteuren des Hochschulsystems aus. Zuletzt illustriert die Dissertation die Divergenzen und Besonderheiten der Governancemodelle in Russland, Kasachstan und Moldau. Die vorliegende Dissertation leistet somit einen Beitrag zum Verständnis der Entwicklung der Governance der Hochschulsysteme in einer sich dynamisch entwickelten Weltregion, welche in der akademischen Literatur bislang nur wenig Aufmerksamkeit erhalten hat.:Table of Contents Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 5 Preliminary remarks and acknowledgements .................................................................................. 6 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 8 1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 11 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 Research Topic ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Starting point and personal research interest ......................................................................... 14 2.3 Research approach ................................................................................................................. 15 2.4 Relevance to research and practice ........................................................................................ 16 2.5 Structure ................................................................................................................................ 16 3 Steps towards a framework of analysis ........................................................................................ 17 3.1 The Governance of Higher Education Systems ..................................................................... 17 3.1.1 Higher Education systems ............................................................................................. 17 3.1.2 Governance in higher education .................................................................................... 23 3.1.3 Summary: Making sense of higher education governance ............................................ 32 3.2 The changing governance of higher education systems ........................................................ 33 3.2.1 Conceptualizing forces of change in the governance of higher education systems: The ‘Glonacal’ agency heuristic ........................................................................................................... 33 3.2.2 Global trends and the emergence of a “global model” of higher education governance36 3.2.3 Instruments of Governance of Higher Education Systems ............................................ 49 3.2.4 Conclusion: A global model of HE governance? .......................................................... 66 3.3 State of research on the governance of higher education in post-Soviet countries ............... 67 3.3.1 European Integration in the post-Soviet space .............................................................. 70 4 Framework of Analysis and Research Design .............................................................................. 73 4.1 Research Questions and Scope of Analysis ........................................................................... 73 4.2 Research Methodology, Case Study Design, and Data Collection ........................................ 74 4.2.1 Case Studies and data collection ................................................................................... 74 4.2.2 Comparing the governance of higher education systems and assessing convergence .. 77 4.2.3 Discussion of validity and reliability of the chosen case study design .......................... 78 4.3 Limitations of the study ......................................................................................................... 79 5 The Point of Departure: The Soviet Union ................................................................................... 80 5.1 Introduction - Key features of the Soviet Higher Education system ..................................... 80 5.2 Structure of the HE system .................................................................................................... 83 5.3 The governance of higher education in the Soviet Union ..................................................... 85 5.3.1 Actors and their capabilities .......................................................................................... 85 5.3.2 Educational Standards and Quality Assurance .............................................................. 86 page 3 5.3.3 Regulation of admission into higher education ............................................................. 88 5.3.4 Institutional governance, decision-making and institutional autonomy ........................ 89 5.3.5 Financing of HEIs.......................................................................................................... 90 5.4 The HE Reforms of 1987 ...................................................................................................... 91 5.5 The break-up and transition of the Soviet higher education system ...................................... 94 6 The Russian Federation ................................................................................................................ 99 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 99 6.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Russia .................... 99 6.2.1 De-regulation and marketization of higher education (1991-2000) ............................ 100 6.2.2 Renaissance of state control, internationalization and renewed investment into higher education (2000-2004) ................................................................................................................ 105 6.2.3 Asserting state control and promoting differentiation of the higher education system (2004-2012) ................................................................................................................................. 110 6.2.4 Differentiated state steering (2012-2016) .................................................................... 119 6.3 The governance model of the Russian HE system by 2015 ................................................ 128 7 The Republic of Kazakhstan ........................................................................................................ 134 7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 134 7.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Kazakhstan .......... 135 7.2.1 Establishing statehood and institutions (1991-1999) ................................................... 136 7.2.2 Curbing corruption and saddling the market (1999-2004) .......................................... 139 7.2.3 Preparing to join the Bologna Space (2005-2010) ...................................................... 146 7.2.4 Differentiation and expanding autonomy (2011-2017) ............................................... 153 7.3 The governance model of the Kazakh HE system by 2015 ................................................. 171 8 The Republic of Moldova ............................................................................................................. 173 8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 173 8.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Moldova .............. 176 8.2.1 Experimentation and laisser-faire after independence (1991-1994) ............................ 177 8.2.2 Attempts to establish impartial instruments to regulate quality (1994-2001) ............. 178 8.2.3 Re-Centralization of powers in the Ministry of Education (2001-2006) ..................... 181 8.2.4 Creation of dysfunctional public structures (2006-2009) ............................................ 183 8.2.5 The long struggle for a new system of governance (2009-2015) ................................ 184 8.3 The governance model of the Moldovan HE system by 2015 ............................................ 194 9 Cross-National Comparison of Developments and Discussion of Results ................................... 197 9.1 How has the governance of higher education systems changed between 1991-2015? ....... 197 9.1.1 Common challenges and similar answers .................................................................... 197 9.1.2 Diverging paths ........................................................................................................... 200 9.1.3 Two-track state steering system in Russia ................................................................... 203 9.1.4 Marketization and expanding state-overseen stakeholder governance in Kazakhstan 205 page 4 9.1.5 Imitation of “European” institutions in Moldova ........................................................ 207 9.2 Is there a convergence towards a “post-Soviet” or global model of governance of higher education systems? .......................................................................................................................... 208 9.2.1 Quality Assurance ....................................................................................................... 208 9.2.2 Institutional Governance and University Autonomy ................................................... 210 9.2.3 Regulation of access .................................................................................................... 211 9.2.4 Financing ..................................................................................................................... 212 9.2.5 Conclusion: Is there a common model of governance? ............................................... 213 9.3 The interplay of national, regional and global factors on the development of the governance of higher education .......................................................................................................................... 218 9.3.1 Global and European forces ........................................................................................ 218 9.3.2 Regional forces ............................................................................................................ 224 9.3.3 National-level: Governments and Ministries responsible for higher education .......... 225 9.3.4 National-level: Stakeholder organizations................................................................... 232 9.3.5 National-level: Higher Education Institutions ............................................................. 234 9.3.6 National-level: Institutional factors of path dependence ............................................. 235 10 Discussion and Outlook .............................................................................................................. 244 10.1 Concluding reflections on the contribution of this study to the field of research ................ 246 11 References .................................................................................................................................. 247 12 Annexes ...................................................................................................................................... 269 12.1 Annex 1: Russia - The governance of the higher education system .................................... 269 12.1.1 Russia: Structure of the higher education system ........................................................ 269 12.1.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 273 12.1.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Russia ............................................... 283 12.1.4 Competitive programs for investment and differentiation of higher education........... 295 12.2 Annex 2: Kazakhstan – The governance of the higher education system ........................... 299 12.2.1 Kazakhstan: Structure of the higher education system ................................................ 299 12.2.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 302 12.2.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Kazakhstan ....................................... 310 12.3 Annex 3: Moldova – The governance of the higher education system ............................... 322 12.3.1 Moldova: Structure of the higher education system .................................................... 322 12.3.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 325 12.3.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Moldova ........................................... 328 12.4 Annex 4: The European “infrastructure” of quality assurance ............................................ 336 / After 25 years of transformations of higher education systems in post-Soviet countries, the single Soviet model of higher education has evolved into fifteen unique national systems, shaped by economic, cul-tural, and political forces, both national and global (Johnstone and Bain 2002). International agencies such as the World Bank and the OECD have lobbied for a set of policies associated with the Washington Consensus (Neave, G. R. & van Vught, 1991). The Bologna Process has created isomorphic pressures, supported by EU policies and funding. Many post-Soviet States have responded to these influences, albeit with different motivations and unclear outcomes (Tomusk, 2011). Comparative research on these developments, however, is scarce and has primarily discussed them in terms of decentralization, mar-ketization and institutional autonomy (Heyneman 2010; Silova, 2011). This PhD thesis aims to 1) reconstruct the developments of governance of higher education systems, 2) analyze to what degree the developments represent a convergence towards a “global model” or a “Post-Soviet model” and 3) formulate hypotheses about driving forces and path dependencies at national, regional and global level which have driven or impeded these changes. Following work by Becher & Kogan (1992), Clark (1983), Jongbloed (2003), Paradeise (2009); Hood (2004); Dill (2010) and Dobbins et al. (2011), the research analyzes the object of analysis, the govern-ance of higher education systems, on five dimensions: 1. Educational Standards, quality assessment, and information provision; 2. Regulation of admissions to higher education; 3. Institutional structures, decision-making, and autonomy; 4. Higher education financing and incentive structures; and 5. The relationship of higher education and the state. Explanatory approaches draw upon perspectives of path dependence and models of institutional change drawing on work by North (1990), Steinmo (1992), Weick (1976), Pierson (2000) and Witte (2006). Three post-Soviet, non-EU, Bologna signatory states were selected to represent a diverse geographical sub-sample of the 15 post-Soviet States. The three countries studied in-depth are Russia, Moldova and Kazakhstan. The period of analysis comprises the changes taking place over a 25-year period between 1991 and 2015. Methodologically, the study rests on extensive literature analysis of previous academic publications, reports by international organizations such as the World Bank, OECD, and the EU, and national strategy papers. Building on this document analysis, over 60 semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with representatives of State organizations, HEIs and other stakeholder groups engaged in the govern-ance of higher education. The outcomes of interviews were used to situate developments in the particular page 12 social-political and societal contexts and to triangulate policy documents with various stakeholder per-spectives, in order to reconstruct how and why specific policy changes came about, were implemented or abandoned. The results show a differentiated picture: The governance instruments promoted by OECD, WB and EU are clearly recognizable in the 2015 governance arrangements in all three case countries. On this instru-ments-level “surface”, a process of convergence towards the “global model” is clearly taking place. While these new instruments are being adopted, however, the specific national governance arrangements persist and continue to matter. Only in isolated instances are old instruments fully displaced. More com-monly, new structures are added as additional layers to existing governance arrangements. The three countries continue to share a number of unique characteristics which sets them apart from the Anglo-Saxon higher education systems, which have inspired the “global model”. The dominating con-trolling role of the state has remained in place in all countries. This is strongly reinforced by national-level institutions and mental models which affirm hierarchy as the legitimate principle in governance and a lack of trust between actors in the system. In all case countries, the mutual expectation of state and HEIs alike remains that the state should be steering the higher education sector. This it does (Russia and Kazakhstan) or attempts to do (Moldova). Clearly, the adoption of governance instruments which are inspired by the “global model” does in no way equate with a retreat of the state. While the elements of university autonomy and stakeholder governance are slowly expanded, even this very process of loosening the reigns of the state is in great measure overseen and steered by the state. Shared character-istics, such as centralized control over admission; a state claim to steer and, in many cases, control the system; a hierarchical, authoritarian, personalized style of governance, management, leadership, as well as accountability form the discernable core of a common “post-Soviet” model of HE governance. The shared institutional past of the Soviet era, as well as common challenges, have facilitated and maintained these commonalities. As time passes, however, these post-Soviet commonalities are getting weaker. Divergent national-level forces and actors are driving or impeding reforms: While in Moldova, political volatility and underfund-ing have repeatedly undermined substantial reforms, Russia and Kazakhstan have each adopted govern-ance and management practices from New Public Management in new idiosyncratic ways: Kazakhstan has embarked on an authoritarian-driven decentralization program. Russia has created a two-tier system of state steering through financial incentivization and evaluation on the one hand, and tight oversight, control and intervention on the other. This dissertation sheds light on the developments, driving forces and mechanisms behind the convergence and divergence of approaches to higher education governance in an under-studied region of the world.:Table of Contents Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 5 Preliminary remarks and acknowledgements .................................................................................. 6 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 8 1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 11 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 Research Topic ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Starting point and personal research interest ......................................................................... 14 2.3 Research approach ................................................................................................................. 15 2.4 Relevance to research and practice ........................................................................................ 16 2.5 Structure ................................................................................................................................ 16 3 Steps towards a framework of analysis ........................................................................................ 17 3.1 The Governance of Higher Education Systems ..................................................................... 17 3.1.1 Higher Education systems ............................................................................................. 17 3.1.2 Governance in higher education .................................................................................... 23 3.1.3 Summary: Making sense of higher education governance ............................................ 32 3.2 The changing governance of higher education systems ........................................................ 33 3.2.1 Conceptualizing forces of change in the governance of higher education systems: The ‘Glonacal’ agency heuristic ........................................................................................................... 33 3.2.2 Global trends and the emergence of a “global model” of higher education governance36 3.2.3 Instruments of Governance of Higher Education Systems ............................................ 49 3.2.4 Conclusion: A global model of HE governance? .......................................................... 66 3.3 State of research on the governance of higher education in post-Soviet countries ............... 67 3.3.1 European Integration in the post-Soviet space .............................................................. 70 4 Framework of Analysis and Research Design .............................................................................. 73 4.1 Research Questions and Scope of Analysis ........................................................................... 73 4.2 Research Methodology, Case Study Design, and Data Collection ........................................ 74 4.2.1 Case Studies and data collection ................................................................................... 74 4.2.2 Comparing the governance of higher education systems and assessing convergence .. 77 4.2.3 Discussion of validity and reliability of the chosen case study design .......................... 78 4.3 Limitations of the study ......................................................................................................... 79 5 The Point of Departure: The Soviet Union ................................................................................... 80 5.1 Introduction - Key features of the Soviet Higher Education system ..................................... 80 5.2 Structure of the HE system .................................................................................................... 83 5.3 The governance of higher education in the Soviet Union ..................................................... 85 5.3.1 Actors and their capabilities .......................................................................................... 85 5.3.2 Educational Standards and Quality Assurance .............................................................. 86 page 3 5.3.3 Regulation of admission into higher education ............................................................. 88 5.3.4 Institutional governance, decision-making and institutional autonomy ........................ 89 5.3.5 Financing of HEIs.......................................................................................................... 90 5.4 The HE Reforms of 1987 ...................................................................................................... 91 5.5 The break-up and transition of the Soviet higher education system ...................................... 94 6 The Russian Federation ................................................................................................................ 99 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 99 6.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Russia .................... 99 6.2.1 De-regulation and marketization of higher education (1991-2000) ............................ 100 6.2.2 Renaissance of state control, internationalization and renewed investment into higher education (2000-2004) ................................................................................................................ 105 6.2.3 Asserting state control and promoting differentiation of the higher education system (2004-2012) ................................................................................................................................. 110 6.2.4 Differentiated state steering (2012-2016) .................................................................... 119 6.3 The governance model of the Russian HE system by 2015 ................................................ 128 7 The Republic of Kazakhstan ........................................................................................................ 134 7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 134 7.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Kazakhstan .......... 135 7.2.1 Establishing statehood and institutions (1991-1999) ................................................... 136 7.2.2 Curbing corruption and saddling the market (1999-2004) .......................................... 139 7.2.3 Preparing to join the Bologna Space (2005-2010) ...................................................... 146 7.2.4 Differentiation and expanding autonomy (2011-2017) ............................................... 153 7.3 The governance model of the Kazakh HE system by 2015 ................................................. 171 8 The Republic of Moldova ............................................................................................................. 173 8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 173 8.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Moldova .............. 176 8.2.1 Experimentation and laisser-faire after independence (1991-1994) ............................ 177 8.2.2 Attempts to establish impartial instruments to regulate quality (1994-2001) ............. 178 8.2.3 Re-Centralization of powers in the Ministry of Education (2001-2006) ..................... 181 8.2.4 Creation of dysfunctional public structures (2006-2009) ............................................ 183 8.2.5 The long struggle for a new system of governance (2009-2015) ................................ 184 8.3 The governance model of the Moldovan HE system by 2015 ............................................ 194 9 Cross-National Comparison of Developments and Discussion of Results ................................... 197 9.1 How has the governance of higher education systems changed between 1991-2015? ....... 197 9.1.1 Common challenges and similar answers .................................................................... 197 9.1.2 Diverging paths ........................................................................................................... 200 9.1.3 Two-track state steering system in Russia ................................................................... 203 9.1.4 Marketization and expanding state-overseen stakeholder governance in Kazakhstan 205 page 4 9.1.5 Imitation of “European” institutions in Moldova ........................................................ 207 9.2 Is there a convergence towards a “post-Soviet” or global model of governance of higher education systems? .......................................................................................................................... 208 9.2.1 Quality Assurance ....................................................................................................... 208 9.2.2 Institutional Governance and University Autonomy ................................................... 210 9.2.3 Regulation of access .................................................................................................... 211 9.2.4 Financing ..................................................................................................................... 212 9.2.5 Conclusion: Is there a common model of governance? ............................................... 213 9.3 The interplay of national, regional and global factors on the development of the governance of higher education .......................................................................................................................... 218 9.3.1 Global and European forces ........................................................................................ 218 9.3.2 Regional forces ............................................................................................................ 224 9.3.3 National-level: Governments and Ministries responsible for higher education .......... 225 9.3.4 National-level: Stakeholder organizations................................................................... 232 9.3.5 National-level: Higher Education Institutions ............................................................. 234 9.3.6 National-level: Institutional factors of path dependence ............................................. 235 10 Discussion and Outlook .............................................................................................................. 244 10.1 Concluding reflections on the contribution of this study to the field of research ................ 246 11 References .................................................................................................................................. 247 12 Annexes ...................................................................................................................................... 269 12.1 Annex 1: Russia - The governance of the higher education system .................................... 269 12.1.1 Russia: Structure of the higher education system ........................................................ 269 12.1.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 273 12.1.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Russia ............................................... 283 12.1.4 Competitive programs for investment and differentiation of higher education........... 295 12.2 Annex 2: Kazakhstan – The governance of the higher education system ........................... 299 12.2.1 Kazakhstan: Structure of the higher education system ................................................ 299 12.2.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 302 12.2.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Kazakhstan ....................................... 310 12.3 Annex 3: Moldova – The governance of the higher education system ............................... 322 12.3.1 Moldova: Structure of the higher education system .................................................... 322 12.3.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 325 12.3.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Moldova ........................................... 328 12.4 Annex 4: The European “infrastructure” of quality assurance ............................................ 336

Das Projekt „Kunst und Kultur in der polarisierten Stadt“ (KupoS) nahm die in den letzten Jahren offenbar werdenden gesamtgesellschaftlichen Polarisierungstendenzen zum Anlass, um die Rolle von Kunst und Kultur im gesellschaftlichen Verständigungsprozess zu untersuchen. Die Stadt Dresden wurde im Sinne eines 'Polarisierungslabors' ins Zentrum der Analyse gerückt, weil sich hier medial verstärkte Prozesse des Übergangs von individuellem Benachteiligungserleben zu kollektivem öffentlichen Protest in verdichteter Form realisiert und in antagonistische Positionen zum Zusammenhang von Herkunft und Zugehörigkeit sedimentiert haben. In einem methodenpluralen Forschungsdesign wurden erstens mögliche Veränderungen in den Kooperationsstrukturen und der Themensetzung im Längsschnitt anhand ausgewählter Ereignisse und Veranstaltungsreihen in der Zeit von 2014 – 2017 untersucht. Zweitens wurde am Beispiel der Ausstellung „Rassismus. Die Erfindung von Menschenrassen“ im Deut-schem Hygienemuseum Dresden (DHMD) der institutionelle Umgang mit konfliktträchtigen Themen sowie die wechselseitige Beeinflussung von künstlerisch-kulturellem Handeln und konkurrierenden Diskursposition innerhalb der Stadtgesell-schaft untersucht. Die vorliegende Studie trägt dazu bei, Funktionslogiken und -dynamiken von Polarisierung im künstlerisch-kulturellen Feld zu verstehen, sowie die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Dialogs auszuloten. Sie beleuchtet zudem die Rolle des Publikums in Polarisierungsprozessen. KupoS leistet damit nicht nur einen empirischen Beitrag zur Bestimmung der Potentiale und Grenzen von Kunst und Kultur als kohäsionsstiftende Vermittlungsinstanzen der Gesellschaft. Die Studie versteht sich auch als Beitrag zur theoretischen Fundierung soziologischer Polarisierungsforschung.:1 Einleitung 5 2 Ziele und Fragestellungen 9 3. Forschungsdesign 11 3.1 Vorgehen im Teilprojekt 1 (TP1) 11 3.2 Vorgehen im Teilprojekt 2 (TP2) 13 3.3 Forschungs-Praxistransfer 17 4 Wie Polarisierung funktioniert: Ergebnisse der Begriffsarbeit 18 5. Wie Polarisierung in der Kulturstadt Dresden funktioniert: Empirische Ergebnisse 22 5.1. Konstellationen in der polarisierten Stadt 22 5.1.1 13. Februar - Der Dresdner Erinnerungsstreit 23 5.1.2 Interkulturelle Tage 26 5.1.3 Der Dresdner Bilderstreit 28 5.1.4 Der Dresdner Literaturstreit 29 5.1.5 Lässt sich über Tabus streiten? Die Ausstellung „Rassismus. Die Erfindung von Menschenrassen“ im DHDM 30 5.1.6 Polarisierung innerhalb der Institutionen 31 5.2. Publikum in der polarisierten Stadt 32 5.2.1 Bedeutung des Publikums im kulturellen Feld 32 5.2.2 Intervenierende Publika (in) der Polarisierung: Der Dresdner Bilderstreit und die Ausstellung „Rassismus. Die Erfindung von Menschenrassen“ 33 5.3 (Wissens)Vermittlung in der polarisierten Stadt – Ein Fallbeispiel 38 5.4. Dialog in der polarisierten Stadt 41 5.4.1 Kunst- und Kulturinstitutionen zwischen Dialograum und Echokammer 41 5.4.2 Formate öffentlicher Auseinandersetzung 42 6 Fazit und Desiderate 46 7 Abbildungs- und Tabellenverzeichnis 48 8 Literatur 49 9 Anhang 54

Das zentrale Thema der vorliegenden Dissertation ist die theoretische Fundierung interdisziplinärer Forschung im Bereich der Erforschung menschlicher Kognition. D.i. die Kognitive Anthropologie. Im Kanon der philosophischen Disziplinen bewegt sich diese Arbeit in der Wissenschaftsphilosophie mit Überschneidungen zur Philosophie des Geistes und verwandten Disziplinen. Sie ist inspiriert durch die empirischen Einzelwissenschaften, insbesondere der Psychologie und der biologischen Verhaltensforschung (Ethologie) und versteht sich als kritische Reflexion der Bedingungen der Möglichkeit interdisziplinärer Forschung im bezeichneten Forschungsfeld. Methodisch ist sie als dialogischer Abgleich zwischen Michael Tomasello und Aristoteles entworfen, dessen Resultat – soweit möglich – eine Synthese beider Positionen zur Natur des Menschen als von Natur aus kooperatives und politisches Lebewesen ist, vor deren Hintergrund u.A. aktuelle Forschungen und ihre Vorannahmen in der kognitiven Anthropologie geprüft werden. Als Ergebnis zeigt sie auf, dass wir den Menschen als von Natur aus kooperatives und politisches Lebewesen begreifen müssen, um im interdisziplinären Dialog einen gemeinsamen Untersuchungsgegenstand zu haben, auf welchen hin gemeinsame Forschungsfragen gestellt werden können. Außerdem zeigt die Arbeit auf, dass jede wissenschaftliche Perspektive innerhalb der menschlichen Kognitionsforschung bereits auf ein kulturell geprägtes Vorverständnis des Menschen und seiner kulturellen Lebensweise aufbaut, das nur in seltenen Fällen auch reflektiert wird, aber in jedem Fall das Ergebnis beeinflusst.

Betroffene mit unerfülltem Kinderwunsch sind mit erheblichen organisatorischen, sozialen und psychischen Belastungen konfrontiert. In Forschung und Literatur wird vor allem die Betroffenheit von Frauen thematisiert und untersucht. Die Gefühls- und Gedankenwelt der Männer mit unerfülltem Kinderwunsch ist zwar nicht gänzlich unerforscht, jedoch noch immer unterrepräsentiert. Aus diesem Grund widmet sich die Arbeit dem Erleben und der Bewältigung der ungewollten Kinderlosigkeit von Männern. Zunächst werden verschiedene Gründe für den unerfüllten Kinderwunsch beschrieben sowie (reproduktions)medizinische Behandlungen thematisiert. Wichtige theoretische Grundlagen bilden die in der Arbeit beschriebenen verschiedenen Bewältigungs-, Abwehr- und Stressmodelle. Beratung und Trauer in Bezug auf den Mann werden betrachtet. Für die Forschungsarbeit wurden fünf narrative Interviews geführt, die anschließend mit der Methode des 'Zirkulären Dekonstruierens' nach Jaeggi et al. ausgewertet wurden. Die daraus gewonnenen Ergebnisse zeigen, dass sich betroffene Männer ihrem Kinderwunsch gegenüber ambivalent verhalten. Zudem übernehmen sie stellvertretend für ihre Frauen Mitverantwortung und hegen Minderwertigkeits-, Schuld- und Schamgefühle, selbst wenn sie nicht der Verursacher der Kinderlosigkeit sind. Die psychosozialen Belastungen ungewollt kinderloser Männer finden gesellschaftlich und im Kontext von Beratung immer noch zu wenig Aufmerksamkeit.

In dieser Arbeit wurde das Konzept der Gesundheitszirkel auf das Arbeitsfeld der Kinderbetreuung in Kindertagesstätten adaptiert und in sieben Einrichtungen mit insgesamt 73 Erzieherinnen und Leiterinnen evaluiert. Die gesamte Intervention "Gesundheitszirkel in Kindertagesstätten" bestand aus der Entwicklung eines Manuals, der Konzeption und Umsetzung einer Qualifizierungsmaßnahme für die Moderatoren der Zirkel und der von zwei Moderatorinnen realisierten fünf bis sechs Sitzungen umfassenden Gesundheitszirkel. Die betrieblichen Gesundheitszirkel wurden nach der wissenschaftlich evaluierten Basis des Düsseldorfer Modells ausgerichtet. Das Ziel dieser Studie war zu überprüfen, ob das Manual und das Qualifizierungsseminar als praxisorientierte Anleitung für die Umsetzung der Gesundheitszirkel dienen und ob sich das adaptierte Konzept für die Problemerkennung und ?bearbeitung in Kindertagesstätten eignet. Um diese Fragen zu beantworten, wurde eine Struktur-, Prozess- und Ergebnisevaluation durchgeführt. Insgesamt wurden die Teilnehmerinnen viermal befragt: dreimal während der Intervention und einmal zwei Monate nach Abschluss der Zirkel. Die Moderatorinnen beurteilten die Qualifizierung und das Manual als hilfreich für die Umsetzung des Gesundheitszirkels und gestalteten die Sitzungen entsprechend den Vorgaben aus dem Leitfaden. Von der Mehrheit der Teilnehmerinnen wurde sowohl die Moderation als auch die Moderationsmethode positiv und strukturierend über die Messzeitpunkte hinweg gleich bleibend beurteilt. Den Erwartungen, dass im Gesundheitszirkel Problembereiche benannt, eigene Vorschläge geäußert und über gesundheitliche Auswirkungen der Arbeit gesprochen werden können, stimmten die Befragten in hoher Ausprägung zu. Die Beschäftigten waren mit den Rahmenbedingungen des Gesundheitszirkels während der gesamten Intervention sehr zufrieden. Die Auswertung der Intervention lässt sich in die Ergebnisse anderer Evaluationsstudien von Gesundheitszirkeln einordnen. Ebenso entsprechen die erhobenen Informationen zur Arbeitsbelastung den in der Literatur erhobenen Faktoren. Somit ist das Verfahren auch in andere Einrichtungen übertragbar und eignet sich als Verfahren betrieblicher Gesundheitsförderung in Kindertagesstätten.