Social Cohesion in Germany 2017. Bertelsmann Stiftung Study. English Summary

Despite all the dire predictions, Germany continues to exhibit a high level of social cohesion. Even the country’s growing cultural and religious diversity is not at odds with its degree of togetherness. Yet, there are clear indications of potential threats: for example, the generally perceived lack of social justice and the gaping cleavage in togetherness between east and west as well as between structurally weak regions and such that are flourishing. To that end, cohesion is much weaker in Germany’s eastern federal states than its western ones. The federal states with the highest levels of cohesion are Saarland, Baden-Württemberg, and Bavaria. These are the core findings from the Social Cohesion Radar (SCR), for which Bertelsmann Stiftung collected fresh data in 2017 by surveying more than 5,000 people throughout the country. The goal was to examine cohesion in terms of its strengths, weaknesses, causes, and effects. For this empirical study, social cohesion is defined as the quality of communal life and is viewed as a multidimensional phenomenon. High levels of cohesion result from strong social relations, a positive feeling of connectedness to the community, and a strong focus on the common good

Learning from the World: Good Practices in Navigating Cultural Diversity. Bertelsmann Stiftung Study 2018

The Reinhard Mohn Prize 2018 “Living Diversity – Shaping Society” focuses on diversity in German society, that is the plurality of cultural, religious and linguistic identities found among the people who live in the country. With this focus, the RMP 2018 highlights a variety of successful strategies for living peacefully in diversity. In historical terms, cultural diversity is nothing new or unique for Germany. In fact, though we are often unaware of it, cultural diversity has been a feature of our daily life for a long time. Indeed, religious differences have shaped German society since the Reformation. And Judaism has always been present in the area we now call Germany

The informed Practitioner: Communication between social scientists and practitioners

Hessler G, Unzicker K. The informed Practitioner: Communication between social scientists and practitioners. 2006.This paper examines interaction processes and knowledge exchange between social scientists and practitioners. We conducted semi-structured interviews with practitioners working in specified fields of practice who have been involved in sociological research projects - as subjects of investigation or as experts. These research projects focused on social integration and disintegration in different sectors of German society. The interviewed practitioners were working in sectors under scrutiny by the researchers, such as public administration, social work, and labor relations. Therefore, we assume that social scientists and practitioners are concerned with similar aspects of society - the social scientists from a more theoretical point of view and the practitioners from a more practical point of view. In this paper we focus specifically on the process of knowledge exchange between social scientists and practitioners described above. In four case studies we present findings that elucidate the practitioners' understanding of the social scientists' research and reveal whether they regard the research as valuable for their work. We describe dimensions that have an influence on interaction and knowledge exchange: interest and approach to the topic under investigation; the motivation of social scientists and practitioners to cooperate with each other; the conditions under which contact is established; and the position of both groups in their own fields. Finally, we look at what expectations practitioners have of scientific knowledge and identify some obstacles to interaction and knowledge exchange

Gesamtbericht der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung in der Programmsäule 2 "Modellprojekte Jugend, Bildung und Prävention" im Programm "VIELFALT TUT GUT. Jugend für Vielfalt, Toleranz und Demokratie" Themencluster: "Auseinandersetzung mit historischem und aktuellem Antisemitismus" für den Berichtszeitraum 16.05.2008-31.08.2009

Lobermeier O, Strobl R, Mewes A, Klemm J. Gesamtbericht der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung in der Programmsäule 2 "Modellprojekte Jugend, Bildung und Prävention" im Programm "VIELFALT TUT GUT. Jugend für Vielfalt, Toleranz und Demokratie" Themencluster: "Auseinandersetzung mit historischem und aktuellem Antisemitismus" für den Berichtszeitraum 16.05.2008-31.08.2009. Bielefeld [u.a]: Universität Bielefeld, Institut für interdisziplinäre Konflikt- und Gewaltforschung [u.a.]; 2009

Öffentliche Sozialforschung - der Nexus von Öffentlichkeit, Praxis und Sozialforschung

Unzicker K, Hessler G. Öffentliche Sozialforschung - der Nexus von Öffentlichkeit, Praxis und Sozialforschung. In: Unzicker K, Hessler G, eds. Öffentliche Sozialforschung und Verantwortung für die Praxis. Zum Verhältnis von Sozialforschung Praxis und Öffentlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Springer VS; 2012: 7-15

Modernisierung und Individualisierung als Herausforderung für die Gesellschaft - Vergleichende Analyse von zwei soziologischen Theorien

Unzicker K. Modernisierung und Individualisierung als Herausforderung für die Gesellschaft - Vergleichende Analyse von zwei soziologischen Theorien.; 2003

Auf dem Markt der Argumente. Vom Umgang mit wissenschaftlicher Expertise in der Praxis. Eine qualitative Untersuchung

Unzicker K. Auf dem Markt der Argumente. Vom Umgang mit wissenschaftlicher Expertise in der Praxis. Eine qualitative Untersuchung. Saarbrücken: VDM; 2010

Auf dem Markt der Argumente : wie Praktiker mit wissenschaftlicher Expertise umgehen

Unzicker K. Auf dem Markt der Argumente : wie Praktiker mit wissenschaftlicher Expertise umgehen. Bielefeld (Germany): Bielefeld University; 2009.In dieser qualitativen Untersuchung wird der Umgang von Praktikern aus Wirtschaft, Politik und Zivilgesellschaft mit wissenschaftlicher Expertise untersucht. Insbesondere wird den Fragen nachgegangen, wie Praktiker wissenschaftliche Expertise suchen, auswählen und bewerten und wie sie mit wissenschaftlichen Kontroversen umgehen