@techreport{AuthDierkesLeiberetal.2017, author = {Auth, Diana and Dierkes, Mirjam and Leiber, Simone and Leitner, Sigrid}, title = {Reconciling employment and elderly care within the "adult worker model": typical arrangements of caring sons}, address = {D{\"u}sseldorf}, issn = {2509-6958}, doi = {10.20385/2509-6958/2017.2}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hbz:due62-opus-10459}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Reconciling work and family life is one of the main issues of welfare state policies in the fields of childcare and long-term care. On that account, policy and research are focused almost exclusively on women - often on the reconciliation of work and childbearing - and social policy at the state level. In our study, we concentrate on men who reconcile gainful employment with elderly care, and we include the company level - a level of analysis often neglected in traditional theoretical approaches and typologies of comparative welfare state research. In Germany, during the last decade, the share of sons who are responsible for taking care of their elderly relatives has remarkably increased. In our qualitative research, we carried out comparative case studies in eleven German companies. We conducted around 60 interviews with male employees caring for an elderly relative, as well as with members of the works councils and human resources departments in different kinds of companies. We analysed which familial, social, professional, legal as well as occupational resources are central for these men, how they cope with reconciling work and care, and which gaps in the welfare system they identify. Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of the caring sons claim not to have problems in reconciling work and care, although they spend significant time on caring. In this paper we try to explain this pattern by looking at their typical care arrangements. We found that while women tend to organise employment around care, men rather seem to organise care around their employment. Given the feminist critique of the "adult worker model" this is an interesting result and needs theoretical reflection. Do men have the solution to the care-blindness of the "adult worker model" without falling into the "cold modern model of care"? Which resources are mainly used in "adult worker care arrangements"? Where are the limits of the approach?}, language = {en} } @techreport{vanRiessenvandenBrink2020, author = {van Rießen, Anne and van den Brink, Henning}, title = {From impacts to benefits: User research as a change of perspective for studies on the practice of drama education}, address = {D{\"u}sseldorf}, issn = {2509-6958}, doi = {10.20385/2509-6958/2020.6}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hbz:due62-opus-21273}, pages = {17}, year = {2020}, abstract = {This essay looks at the potentials and limitations of user research for studies on the practice of drama education. To date, this field has been dominated by impact studies. After illustrating the blind spots that are created by taking this research approach to the practice of drama education, we will present the user research perspective and look at the opportunities that it provides to generate new, differentiated knowledge. User research makes it possible to illuminate the processes of acquiring and using knowledge in terms of its delivery. It also provides a potential framework of analysis for placing these processes in the delivery context, which includes subjective learning types, relevance and institutional and social conditions. This expanded perspective will make it possible to identify the factors that foster and limit benefits and reflect them in practice.}, subject = {Theaterp{\"a}dagogik}, language = {en} } @techreport{KruegerHallikKalevetal.2024, author = {Kr{\"u}ger, Karsten and Hallik, Maarja and Kalev, Leif and Kostakos, Georgios and Toscano, Beatriz and Virchow, Fabian}, title = {Conceptual Framework and Vision: Responsible Democratic Citizenship and Education for Democracy}, publisher = {Zenodo}, organization = {DEMOCRAT project on Education for Democracy, Horizon Europe}, doi = {10.5281/zenodo.14526029}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hbz:due62-opus-55386}, pages = {71}, year = {2024}, abstract = {The DEMOCRAT project aims to address society's democratic deficits by maximising opportunities for mutual positive reinforcement between education and democratic participation through transformative learning for young people. DEMOCRAT builds on the premise that education plays a fundamental role in the development of democratic societies by equipping citizens with the values, knowledge and skills necessary for active participation, critical thinking and informed decision-making. DEMOCRAT was conceived in response to the plethora of ongoing crises affecting Europe and the world. These crises test the effectiveness of democratic institutions and practices, as well as the resilience of individuals and societies. A review of civic education in Europe has shown that, despite the importance given to democratic education in public discourse, it is generally not considered a major topic for education itself. The project's core objective is to reinforce the sustainability and resilience of democracy in Europe by updating and strengthening Education for Democracy (EfD), through participatory redesign and implementation of context-specific curricula and learning methods in a framework of rapid digitalisation. The novelty of DEMOCRAT lies in the dual nature of its educational objectives: alongside exploring the conceptual or historical frameworks concerning the development of the signifier 'democracy', the project aims to operationalise it in various fields of social tension (inclusion, environmental awareness, gender issues) by encouraging civic behaviour, active participation and engagement, communication skills, critical thinking and problem solving through education for democracy. DEMOCRAT's action goes in three main directions that are the key aspects of its methodological approach: Firstly, a conceptual research concerned with definitions, concepts and historical debates on the basis of the values agreed by the EU and Agenda 2030, making sense of the structural challenges that threaten democracy. This preliminary conceptual effort identifies research gaps and includes an outline of a framework of competences for responsible democratic citizenship. It serves as a basis for the design of the practical aspect of the project, the pilot laboratories for the implementation of democracy education. Secondly, the so-called living labs where the community of education (schools, parents and students' associations, policy makers) is engaged in debate and the co-creation of transformative learning approaches in national and transnational settings. Adding to these activities the digital platform AGORA, it could become like a one-stop-shop for educational community in Europe to find inspiration. These living labs will also be outstanding sources for the evaluation of trends, continuous assessment as well as recommendations for best practices and policy making. Finally, and beyond the classroom environment, DEMOCRAT aims at intervening into the educational environment (schools, informal training) through the elaboration of a European Curriculum for EfD. This involves introducing dynamic and innovative didactic-practical units (methods, approaches or tools) into the existing curriculum or classroom practice in which students and educators actively participate in or prepare for real-world democratic processes and civic activities.}, subject = {Politische Bildung}, language = {en} } @techreport{KostakosKruegerVirchow2025, author = {Kostakos, Georgios and Kr{\"u}ger, Karsten and Virchow, Fabian}, title = {Policy Brief: Education for Responsible Democratic Citizenship. A European Vision. Submitted Version}, publisher = {DEMOCRAT}, doi = {10.5281/zenodo.17777838}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hbz:due62-opus-60287}, pages = {17}, year = {2025}, abstract = {Democracy is the cornerstone of European identity, which is complementary to national identities. In view of the challenges democracy is currently facing, at both European and national level, such as growing polarisation, increasing threats to human security and expanding digitalisation, it is important to defend and consolidate it, as a sine-qua-non element of "the European way of life". Education for responsible democratic citizenship (RDC) or education for democracy (EfD) for short is a way of doing so. EfD strategies and tools to strengthen the democratic agency/capacity for action of citizens, the youth in particular, through transformative learning, has been the focus of the DEMOCRAT project (March 2023 to February 2026). This Policy Brief was initially drafted after the seven first months of the DEMOCRAT project but is now being finalised with the experience of two-and-a-half years of project implementation in mind. Key findings and proposed policy actions presented here include: · To safeguard democracy within the European Union, transformative education for democracy must be reinforced, also taking into account fast-moving digitalisation and fast-breached planetary boundaries. · The shift to transformative education for democracy should be based on a coherent competence framework defined in complementarity with the frameworks of citizenship competences proposed by the EU (Key Competences for Lifelong Learning) and the Council of Europe (Competences for Democratic Culture). The four key RDC competences identified by DEMOCRAT are: Solidary Participation, Deliberation, Judgement, and Democratic Resilience. · The above competence framework should be translated by EU member states and schools in different parts of Europe into a sample curriculum for responsible democratic citizenship adjusted to their education systems and societies. · Schools have to be laboratories of democratic practice on a daily basis and across subjects, not just for a few hours of civic education or education for democracy per week, and need to connect with a conducive local, regional, national, European, global and digital environment. · Students need to be aware of both their rights and responsibilities, and be guided to act on both, within their peer groups and in relation to their teachers, parents, local authorities and other relevant stakeholders. A crucial aspect of any approach to education for democracy is the competence of the teacher to create an environment in which the students can learn democracy in action and not just in words}, subject = {Demokratische Bildung}, language = {en} } @techreport{SchmidVirchowWinteretal.2026, author = {Schmid, Andreas and Virchow, Fabian and Winter, Jana and Bittner, Jennifer}, title = {Mediator Training: 3rd German Pilot Intervention Assessment Report}, publisher = {DEMOCRAT}, doi = {10.5281/zenodo.18383656}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hbz:due62-opus-60295}, pages = {13}, year = {2026}, abstract = {The DEMOCRAT Project's work packages are built on each other. This evaluation report is the penultimate stage of the complex Education for democracy (EfD) process designed, tested, evaluated and shared for exploitation by the consortium. DEMOCRAT has outlined a European curriculum for EFD, based on a shared understanding of what democracy means, as well as a competence framework for responsible democratic citizenship (RDC). The curriculum has been piloted in a series of interventions in primary and secondary schools in the six EU member states in which DEMOCRAT has operated: Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Poland and Spain. In some countries, the testing stage also included interventions in teacher training at higher education institutes. The national activities were designed on the basis of the DEMOCRAT competence framework (included in D2.1), taking into account preliminary national reports on education inequalities and the state of the art in EfD (D3.1) in the six participating countries. The national and local work that is evaluated in the present deliverable is also based on DEMOCRAT deliverable D5.1. (Design of local pilot projects (LPPs)), as well as on subsequently developed tools (see Annexed Guides) and includes the self-assessment of the pilot participants. A final elaboration of the national pilot interventions will be done when they are compiled into the DEMOCRAT Toolbox (D6.1., under preparation). The results of the assessment of the national intervention were presented in the deliverable D5.2 and the results of the comparison of the intervention in the deliverable D5.3). It is worth noting that the various pilots/interventions, because of their limited scale and duration, are not considered as providing strictly scientific evidence about the efficiency and effectiveness of the learning approaches used in terms of RDC competence development. For the DEMOCRAT Project, the primary objective was to test and further develop the competence framework and the assessment tools, as well as to obtain insights of possible success and hindering factors for novel approaches in Education for Democracy. Pilots show that the school heads and teachers have a crucial role in education for democracy and that they can contribute significantly, as agents of research and development, as well as implementation. Here we present the results of the assessment of the German pilot interventions: Mediator Training.}, subject = {Demokratische Bildung}, language = {en} }