ZU|Repositorium – der Hochschul- und Dokumentenschriftenserver der Zeppelin Universität
Not a member yet
12136 research outputs found
Sort by
Try to See it My Way: Humans Take the Level-1 Visual Perspective of Humanoid Robot Avatars
No full text
A Contingency Framework for the Performance Consequences of Team Boundary Management: A Meta-Analysis of 30 Years of Research
No full text
Das Konzept einer Ersatzstimme für die Erststimme als wesentliches Element des Ampelvorschlags zur Verhinderung der Bundestagsvergrößerung im Mai 2022
No full textFrom Igniting the Flame to Putting Out the Fire: Discourses of Escalation and Restraint in Societies on the Brink of Mass Atrocities
No full textThere appears to be a fundamental mismatch in contemporary genocide studies when it comes to analyzing factors of escalation vis-à-vis factors of de-escalation. While most studies focus on causes and drivers of genocidal atrocities, they tend to overlook potential pathways of de-escalation and sources of restraint. This paper seeks to address the prevailing imbalance by turning to the following question: why do some countries descend into a genocidal spiral while other high-risk cases manage to retreat from the brink? First, by conducting a comprehensive literature review, the theoretical perspectives on genocidal (de-)escalation are assessed and systematized. Crucially, many of the prevailing academic accounts examine argumentation, speech, or rhetoric as a proxy for their respective research object without admitting to it, let alone adequately conceptualizing the role of discourse in genocidal contexts. This is why, second, the theoretical status quo is integrated within a discourse-based model of genocidal (de-)escalation. By conceptually introducing both discourses of escalation (DoE) and discourses of restraint (DoR), the model seeks to establish a much more refined understanding of how discursive manifestations make a difference in societies on the brink of genocide; how they appear and appeal; how they pick up and interact with ideologies, emotions, values, norms, and interests; and how precisely they have an impact on (potential) victims, bystanders, and perpetrators. As such, the model encompasses several discursive hallmarks which collectively make the perpetration vis-à-vis prevention of genocidal violence in a given context possible (e.g. dehumanization vs. common humanity, positive vs. negative emotions, forward-looking vs. backward-looking themes). Third, the model is empirically applied to two cases of genocidal (de-)escalation: Rwanda prior to the 1994 genocide (DoE) and Kenya retreating from the brink following the 2007/2008 electoral violence (DoR)
Delphi Study on Transcultural Competence: Summary and Reflections on a Call for a Relational Approach
No full textAbstract In a world shaped by cultural complexity, knowledge about, and toleranceof, cultural differences seem to be insufficient to successfully cooperate and createvalue across borders. In this spirit, an international and interdisciplinary Delphi studyon transcultural competence was conducted with a panel of around 50 experts. Thisarticle summarizes the main findings of this Delphi study that lays the foundationsfor the contributions collected in this book. As a main insight and common denominator of the study, a relational view on cultural complexity could be identified as apromising step for further debate and research. Such a relational perspective includesconsidering individuals and organizations in their relational context and invites crosscultural scholarship to address cultural complexity (differences, commonalities, similarities, etc.) in its relational nature. The study findings thereby highlight that whilestriving for similarities would end up in homogenization, a pursuit of commonalitiesinvolves connecting and building relations that allow differences to co-exist. Againstthis backdrop, transcultural competence could be particularly associated with theconnotation of “beyond” and thus be defined as referring to a general competence ofindividuals or organizations to intentionally develop new commonalities in contextsof cultural complexity. It refers to the ability and willingness to engage in context-specific processes of constructing new shared meaning and action beyond existingpractices by shared experience and mutual learning as a means and result of beingin relation. Accordingly, the process that the Delphi group has undergone together,including the preparation of this edited book, represents a transcultural approach inthe sense of shared learning stemming from shared experience, the development ofnew commonalities in contexts of cultural complexity as well as the formation of acommunity of practice
