Unravelling deservingness: Which criteria do people use to judge the relative deservingness of welfare target groups? A vignette-based focus group study

Previous research suggests that European citizens share consistent attitudes towards the relative deservingness of different target groups of social policy, such as perceiving elderly people as most deserving, unemployed people as less deserving and immigrants as least deserving. Yet, it is unclear which criteria people apply when making these judgements. In this article, we explore the reasoning behind deservingness judgements. We analyse how four focus groups – from the middle class, the working class, young people and elderly people – discuss and rank various vignettes representing welfare target groups. Our focus groups’ rankings mirror the well-established rank order of welfare target groups, and we also introduce further target groups: median-income families, low-income earners, and well-off earners. Our analyses of reasoning patterns show that depending on the target group specific combinations of deservingness criteria suggested in the literature (e.g. need, reciprocity, identity, control) are applied, and we suggest adding a further criterion emphasizing future returns on invested resources (‘social investment’). Furthermore, by comparing focus groups, we find that different groups back up similar rankings by differing criteria, suggesting that below the surface of a ‘common deservingness culture’ linger class and other differences in perceiving welfare deservingness.NORFACE Welfare State FuturesPeer Reviewe

Legitimizing Inequality

Do people in different countries understand and frame the principle of meritocracy differently? This question is the starting point for this cross-national analysis of the moral repertoires of meritocracy in four countries: Germany, Norway, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. The authors pursue a mixed methods approach, using data from the European Social Survey 2016 and qualitative data from group discussions. In these discussions, citizens openly talked about issues like inequality and social policy, which allows us to study their understandings and framings of meritocracy. The authors show that the issue of unequal rewards does not only find different levels of support, but also that people – corresponding to the context they live in – have different understandings of which merits should count. The authors identify a ‘market success meritocracy’ in the UK, a work-centred understanding in Germany, a ‘common good meritocracy’ in Norway, and non-salience of this issue in Slovenia.Peer Reviewe

Symposion Forschungsdateninfrastruktur

Wie sollen qualitative sozialwissenschaftliche Daten gespeichert, archiviert und nachgenutzt werden? Das Symposion nimmt diese Frage auf und diskutiert sie anhand von Beiträgen aus Forschungsdatenzentren, die auf qualitative Daten spezialisiert sind. Neben der Vorstellung und Darstellung dieser Einrichtungen werden die mit der Archivierung einhergehenden Probleme und deren Lösungen angesprochen. How should qualitative social science data be stored, archived and re-used? The symposium takes up this question and discusses it on the basis of contributions from research data centres that specialise in qualitative data. In addition to the presentation of these institutions, the problems associated with archiving and their solutions will be discussed

Regimes, Social Risks and the Welfare Mix: Unpacking Attitudes to Pensions and Childcare in Germany and the UK through De-liberative Forums

Modern welfare regimes rest on a range of actors – state, market, family/households, em-ployers and charities – but austerity programmes diminish the contribution of the state. While changes in this ‘welfare mix’ require support from the population, attitude studies have focused mainly on people’s views on state responsibilities, using welfare regime the-ory to explain differences. This paper contributes to our understanding of the welfare mix by including other providers such as the market, the family or employers, and also intro-duces social risk theories, contrasting new and old risks. Regime theory implies differences will persist over time, whereas risk theory suggests that growing similarities in certain risks may tend to promote international convergence. This article examines attitudes to the roles of state, market, family, charity/community and employer for pension and childcare in Ger-many and the UK. For data collection we used deliberative forums, a new method in social policy research that allows citizens space to pursue extended lightly moderated discussion and permits researchers to analyse people’s justifications for their attitudes. Our results show that there are patterns of convergence especially in preferences for childcare, but that regime predominates in people’s justifications for their attitudes: regime differences in atti-tudes are resilient

Rules and Norms of Consumer Insolvency and Debt Relief: A Comparison and Classification of Personal Bankruptcy Systems in 15 Economically Advanced Countries

In the past decades, the growth of consumer credit has led to increased debt problems of private households, and many economically advanced countries have responded to this new social risk of consumer over-indebtedness by adopting consumer bankruptcy laws that enable insolvent individuals a financial ‘fresh start’ via discharge of debts. The study describes, compares and classifies the legal rules and underlying norms of consumer bankruptcy in fifteen advanced economies and makes three contributions to comparative politics, sociology and law: First, it develops conceptualizations of consumer bankruptcy and its actors, aims and components that are precise, theoretically informed and transnationally applicable. Second, it offers a systematic and detailed comparison of consumer bankruptcy regimes from a wide range of legal, economic and social-political traditions, which exhibits similarities and differences regarding the substantive rules of consumer debt relief. Third, the study provides an empirical classification of consumer bankruptcy systems based on a theory-driven framework, a new comparative dataset and hierarchical clustering. This classification identifies a common core of consumer bankruptcy as well as four distinct models of debt relief, which differ in their legal, economic and social-political orientations and their resultant understandings of debtors, creditors, markets, social problems and the public order: (1) a ‘market model’ that offers a quick ‘fresh start’ for insolvent individuals; (2) a ‘restrictions model’ that imposes economic, political and civil restrictions on debtors; (3) a ‘liability model’ that emphasizes the debtor’s responsibility for debt repayment; and (4) a ‘mercy model’ that focuses on the debtor’s deservingness for debt relief. In sum, the study creates solid conceptual and empirical foundations for comparative consumer bankruptcy research and connects the field to political economy, sociology, consumer policy, public policy, social policy and welfare state research

Explanatory notes on the templates for informed consent provided by Qualiservice

Das Forschungsdatenzentrum (FDZ) Qualiservice hat gemeinsam mit der Kanzlei MLS LEGAL GmbH – Rechtsanwalts- und Fachanwaltsgesellschaft (mls legal) rechtssichere Vorlagen für die informierte Einwilligung zur (qualitativen) sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung erstellt, die auf der Qualiservice-Website (https://www.qualiservice.org/) heruntergeladen werden können. Mit diesen Vorlagen möchte Qualiservice Forschende in der Vorbereitung der unterschiedlichen Phasen der Datenverarbeitung in ihrem Forschungsprojekt, aber auch in der Vorbereitung einer geplanten Archivierung und Bereitstellung der Forschungsdaten für die wissenschaftliche Sekundärnutzung, unterstützen. Das vorliegende Arbeitspapier ergänzt diese Vorlagen für die informierte Einwilligung, indem sie grundlegende Bestimmungen für die Information und die Einwilligungserklärung der Forschungsteilnehmer*innen darstellt und die Qualiservice-Mustervorlagen erläutert, die Forschende an ihr konkretes Forschungsvorhaben anpassen können

Contextualizing qualitative research data for re-use: a guidance for researchers to prepare a study report

Die Kontextualisierung von qualitativen Forschungsdaten für weitere wissenschaftliche Nutzungen stellt eine der zentralen Herausforderungen im "Data Sharing" dar. Das Forschungsdatenzentrum Qualiservice möchte mit diesem Arbeitspapier Forschende bei der Kontextualisierung ihrer Forschungsmaterialien unterstützen. Die Handreichung enthält Empfehlungen für die Beschreibung und Dokumentation der Forschungsdaten. Im Mittelpunkt steht das Verfassen eines Studienreports, in dem das Forschungsprojekt, die Generierung der Daten und die Daten selbst beschrieben werden. Zur Einführung wird ein Überblick über die Bedeutung der Kontextualisierung und den Prozess der Kontextualisierung bei Qualiservice gegeben. Anschließend wird der Studienreport näher erläutert, mit dessen Hilfe sich Interessierte einen Überblick über die im Forschungsprojekt generierten Daten verschaffen können. Abschließend wird eine Vorlage für die Erstellung eines Studienreports präsentiert, die als Orientierung dienen soll und an die Erfordernisse des Forschungsprojekts angepasst werden kann

Eine Dateninfrastruktur für die Gesellschaftswissenschaften. Unterstützung in der Arbeit mit Forschungsdaten durch KonsortSWD

KonsortSWD ist das NFDI Konsortium für die Sozial-, Verhaltens-, Bildungs- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Für die äußerst vielfältigen Datentypen und Forschungsmethoden bauen die Beteiligten im Rahmen der NFDI eine bereits bestehende Forschungsdateninfrastruktur aus und ergänzen neue integrierende Dienste. Basis sind die heute 41 vom Rat für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsdaten akkreditierten Forschungsdatenzentren (FDZ). FDZ sind Spezialsammlungen zu jeweils spezifischen Forschungsdaten, z.B. aus der qualitativen Sozialforschung, und können so Forschende auf Basis einer ausführlichen Expertise zu diesen Daten beraten. Neben der Unterstützung der FDZ baut KonsortSWD auch neue Dienste in den Bereichen Datenproduktion, Datenzugang und Technische Lösungen auf.KonsortSWD is the NFDI consortium for the social, behavioural, educational and economic sciences. The stakeholders are expanding an existing research data infrastructure within the NFDI to accommodate these highly diverse types of data and research methods, and adding new integrating services. The 41 research data centres (RDCs) already accredited by the German Data Forum constitute the basis for this. The RDCs are special collections of specifc research data, e.g. from qualitative social research, and can thus advise researchers on the basis of their detailed expertise on the relevant data. In addition to supporting the RDCs, KonsortSWD is also establishing new services in the areas of data production, data access and technical solutions