Differenz durch Normalisierung

Der Autor hinterfragt, „welche Wirkungen implizite (und explizite) Normalitätsvorstellungen in der Erziehungswissenschaft auf den Umgang mit bzw. auf die Produktion von Gleichheit und Differenz haben. Da Normalisierung als Begriff inzwischen relativ weit verbreitet ist, hat er unterschiedliche Bedeutungen und, je nach Kontext, abweichende Konnotationen (1.). Um diese zu verstehen, lohnt ein Blick in die Entstehungsgeschichte heute wirksamer Vorstellungen von Normalität (2.). Am Beispiel von Rousseaus Émile wird angedeutet, wie (überholte) Normalitätsvorstellungen in pädagogischen Theorien auch heute (noch) unbedacht etwa auf das pädagogische Menschenbild wirken können (3.). Darüber hinaus kann man z. B. Aspekte der jüngeren Subdisziplinbildung der Erziehungswissenschaft als Resultat der normalisierenden Wirkung pädagogischer Theorien begreifen (4.) (…) Anhand einer Diskussion aus einem Teilbereich der Interkulturellen Erziehungswissenschaft, der Frage der Ethnisierung durch ethnisch orientierte wissenschaftliche Erklärungsansätze, wird angedeutet, dass Normalisierungen im Bildungswesen mehr als rein akademische Folgen haben (5.). Insgesamt zeigt die Argumentation – wenn an dieser Stelle auch nur skizzenhaft –, dass Normalisierungsprozesse auch in der Erziehungswissenschaft durch die Verbreitung bestimmter Normalitätsannahmen Differenz bzw. Differenzvorstellungen erzeugen bzw. verstärken.“ (DIPF/ Orig./ ssch

The potential of preregistration in psychology: Assessing preregistration producibility and preregistration-study consistency

Study preregistration has become increasingly popular in psychology, but its potential to restrict researcher degrees of freedom has not yet been empirically verified. We used an extensive protocol to assess the producibility (i.e., the degree to which a study can be properly conducted based on the available information) of preregistrations and the consistency between preregistrations and their corresponding papers for 300 psychology studies. We found that preregistrations often lack methodological details and that undisclosed deviations from preregistered plans are frequent. These results highlight that biases due to researcher degrees of freedom remain possible in many preregistered studies. More comprehensive registration templates typically yielded more producible preregistrations. We did not find that the producibility and consistency of preregistrations differed over time or between original and replication studies. Furthermore, we found that operationalizations of variables were generally preregistered more producible and consistently than other study parts. Inconsistencies between preregistrations and published studies were mainly encountered for data collection procedures, statistical models, and exclusion criteria. Our results indicate that, to unlock the full potential of preregistration, researchers in psychology should aim to write more producible preregistrations, adhere to these preregistrations more faithfully, and more transparently report any deviations from their preregistrations. This could be facilitated by training and education to improve preregistration skills, as well as the development of more comprehensive templates

The potential of preregistration in psychology: assessing preregistration producibility and preregistration-study consistency

Study preregistration has become increasingly popular in psychology, but its effectiveness in restricting potentially biasing researcher degrees of freedom remains unclear. We used an extensive protocol to assess the producibility (i.e., the degree to which a study can be properly conducted based on the available information) of preregistrations and the consistency between preregistration and their corresponding papers for 300 psychology studies. We found that preregistrations often lack methodological details and that undisclosed deviations from preregistered plans are frequent. Combining the producibility and consistency results highlights that biases due to researcher degrees of freedom are likely in many preregistered studies. More comprehensive registration templates typically yielded more producible and hence better preregistrations. We did not find that effectiveness of preregistrations differed over time or between original and replication studies. Furthermore, we found that operationalizations of variables were generally more effectively preregistered than other study parts. Inconsistencies between preregistrations and published studies were mainly encountered for data collection procedures, statistical models, and exclusion criteria. Our results indicate that, to unlock the full potential of preregistration, researchers in psychology should aim to write more producible preregistrations, adhere to these preregistrations more faithfully, and more transparently report any deviations from their preregistrations. This could be facilitated by training and education to improve preregistration skills, as well as the development of more comprehensive templates

Neuropilin-1 modulates vascular endothelial growth factor-induced poly(ADP-ribose)-polymerase leading to reduced cerebrovascular apoptosis

Cerebral ischemia is encompassed by cerebrovascular apoptosis, yet the mechanisms behind apoptosis regulation are not fully understood. We previously demonstrated inhibition of endothelial apoptosis by vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) through upregulation of poly(ADP-ribose)-polymerase (PARP) expression. However, PARP overactivation through oxidative stress can lead to necrosis. This study tested the hypothesis that neuropilin-1 (NP-1), an alternative VEGF receptor, regulates the response to cerebral ischemia by modulating PARP expression and, in turn, apoptosis inhibition by VEGF. In endothelial cell culture, NP-1 colocalized with VEGF receptor-2 (VEGFR-2) and acted as its coreceptor. This significantly enhanced VEGF-induced PARP mRNA and protein expression demonstrated by receptor-specific inhibitors and VEGF-A isoforms. NP-1 augmented the inhibitory effect of VEGF/VEGFR-2 interaction on apoptosis induced by adhesion inhibition through the αV-integrin inhibitor cRGDfV. NP-1/VEGFR-2 signal transduction involved JNK and Akt. In rat models of permanent and temporary middle cerebral artery occlusion, the ischemic cerebral hemispheres displayed endothelial and neuronal apoptosis next to increased endothelial NP-1 and VEGFR-2 expression compared to non-ischemic cerebral hemispheres, sham-operated or untreated controls. Increased vascular superoxide dismutase-1 and catalase expression as well as decreased glycogen reserves indicated oxidative stress in the ischemic brain. Of note, protein levels of intact PARP remained stable despite pro-apoptotic conditions through increased PARP mRNA production during cerebral ischemia. In conclusion, NP-1 is upregulated in conditions of imminent cerebrovascular apoptosis to reinforce apoptosis inhibition and modulate VEGF-dependent PARP expression and activation. We propose that NP-1 is a key modulator of VEGF maintaining cerebrovascular integrity during ischemia. Modulating the function of NP-1 to target PARP could help to prevent cellular damage in cerebrovascular disease

The potential of preregistration in psychology: Assessing preregistration producibility and preregistration-study consistency

©American Psychological Association, [2024]. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. The final article is available, upon publication, at: [ARTICLE DOI]”Study preregistration has become increasingly popular in psychology, but its potential to restrict researcher degrees of freedom has not yet been empirically verified. We used an extensive protocol to assess the producibility (i.e., the degree to which a study can be properly conducted based on the available information) of preregistrations and the consistency between preregistrations and their corresponding papers for 300 psychology studies. We found that preregistrations often lack methodological details and that undisclosed deviations from preregistered plans are frequent. These results highlight that biases due to researcher degrees of freedom remain possible in many preregistered studies. More comprehensive registration templates typically yielded more producible preregistrations. We did not find that the producibility and consistency of preregistrations differed over time or between original and replication studies. Furthermore, we found that operationalizations of variables were generally preregistered more producible and consistently than other study parts. Inconsistencies between preregistrations and published studies were mainly encountered for data collection procedures, statistical models, and exclusion criteria. Our results indicate that, to unlock the full potential of preregistration, researchers in psychology should aim to write more producible preregistrations, adhere to these preregistrations more faithfully, and more transparently report any deviations from their preregistrations. This could be facilitated by training and education to improve preregistration skills, as well as the development of more comprehensive templates.unfunde