Sozialwissenschaften
Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (4)
- Article (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (6) (remove)
Keywords
- Digital Humanities (2)
- Europäische Union (2)
- Isolationismus (2)
- Präsidentenwahl (2)
- USA (2)
- American politics (1)
- Assimilation <Soziologie> (1)
- Datenschutz (1)
- Datentyp (1)
- Deutsche (1)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (6) (remove)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (4)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (2)
Publisher
- Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group (2)
- Bournemouth University (1)
- Elsevier (1)
- Klostermann (1)
- Palgrave (1)
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.
Based on conference reports and minutes, archive material and official documents, the article seeks to explore the way in which the promotion of women’s sports and of women in leadership positions became an important part of the sport policy of two major organizations involved in European sport cooperation: the Council of Europe and the European Sport Conference. During first and modest discussions in the 1960s and 1970s it constituted a rather paternalistic project. Also, it was based on the assumption of an essential difference between men and women concerning the need for participation in sport. This only changed since the beginning of the 1980s when women took the course in their own hands, challenged the underlying assumptions and created new networks of cooperation.
Digital humanities research under United States and European copyright laws. Evolving frameworks
(2021)
This chapter summarizes the current state of copyright laws in the United States and European Union that most affect Digital Humanities research, namely the fair use doctrine in the US and research exceptions in Europe, including the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which has been finally adopted in 2019. This summary begins with a description of recent copyright advances most relevant to DH research, and finishes with an analysis of a significant remaining legal hurdle which DH researchers face: how do fair use and research exceptions deal with the critical issue of circumventing technological protection measures (TPM, a.k.a. DRM). Our discussion of the lawful means of obtaining TPM-protected material may contribute to both current DH research and planning decisions and inform future stakeholders and lawmakers of the need to allow TPM circumvention for academic research.
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on personal data protection in the European Union entered into application on 25 May 2018. With its 173 recitals and 99 articles, it may be one of the most ambitious pieces of EU legislation to date. Rather than a guide to GDPR compliance for Digital Humanities researchers, this chapter looks at the use of personal data in DH projects from the data subject’s perspective, and examines to what extent the GDPR kept its promise of enabling the data subject to “take control of his data”. The chapter provides an overview of the right to privacy and the right to data protection, a discussion of the relation between the concept of data control and privacy and data protection law, an introduction to the GDPR, and an explanation of its relevance for scientific research in general and DH in particular. The main section of the chapter analyses two types of data control mechanisms (consent and data subject rights) and their impact on DH research.
We question the growing consensus in the literature that European Americans behave as a homogenous pan-ethnic coalition of voters. Seemingly below the radar of scholarship on voting groups in American politics, we identify a group of white voters that behaves differently from others: German Americans, the largest ethnic group, regionally concentrated in the ‘Swinging Midwest’. Using county level voting returns, ancestry group information from the American Community Survey (ACS), current survey data and historical census data going back as early as 1910, we provide evidence for a partisan and a non-partisan pathway that motivated German Americans to vote for Trump in 2016: a historically grown association with the Republican Party and an acquired taste for isolationist attitudes that mobilizes non-partisan German Americans to support isolationist candidates. Our findings indicate that European American experiences of migration and integration still echo into the political arena of today.