Fakultät Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hohpublica.uni-hohenheim.de/handle/123456789/22
Die Fakultät vereint Forschung und moderne Lehre nach internationalen Standards. Das Hohenheimer Modell verzahnt dabei betriebs- und volkswirtschaftliche, sozial- und rechtswissenschaftliche Aspekte.
Homepage: https://wiso.uni-hohenheim.de/
Browse
Browsing Fakultät Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften by Sustainable Development Goals "11"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Publication Metropolitan, urban, and rural regions: how regional differences affect elementary school students in Germany(2025) Schwerter, Jakob; Bleher, Johannes; Doebler, Philipp; McElvany, NeleThis study examined how regional differences affect elementary school students using the representative German Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2016 data (N = 3,959 fourth-grade students; M_{Age} = 10.34 years; 49% girls; 71% from a nonimmigrant background) by combining bootstrapping, multiple imputations, principal component analysis, and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). Grouping regions into rural, (sub-)urban, and metropolitan, we found that students from rural and metropolitan areas are 10.9% and 15.1% more likely, respectively, to receive an academic track recommendation than their urban counterparts. Similarly, rural and metropolitan students are 0.2 to 0.3 standard deviations more likely to enjoy school and be interested in reading than their urban counterparts. Aside from students’ backgrounds and skills, many of the characteristics explaining this regional difference are structural, directly affected by policy decisions. Variables directly and indirectly influenced by policy help explain regional differences, but nonpolicy variables reduce regional differences in academic track recommendations the most.Publication Navigating the social dilemma of autonomous systems: normative and applied arguments(2025) Bodenschatz, AnjaAutonomous systems (ASs) become ubiquitous in society. For one specific ethical challenge, normative discussions are scarce: the social dilemma of autonomous systems (SDAS). This dilemma was assessed in empirical studies on autonomous vehicles (AVs). Many people generally agree to a utilitarian programming of ASs, but do not want to buy a machine that might sacrifice them deterministically. One possible way to mitigate the SDAS would be for ASs to randomize between options of action. This would bridge between a socially accepted program and the urge of potential AS users for some sense of self-protection. However, the normativity of randomization has not yet been evaluated for dilemmas between self-preservation and self-sacrifice for the “greater good” of saving several other lives. This paper closes this gap. It provides an overview of the most prominent normative and applied arguments for all three options of action in the dilemmas of interest: self-sacrifice, self-preservation, and randomization. As a prerequisite for inclusion in societal discussions on AS programming, it is ascertained that a normative argument can be elicited for each potential course of action in abstract thought experiments. The paper then progresses to discuss factors that may shift the normative claim between self-sacrifice, self-preservation, and randomization in the case of AV programming. The factors identified in this comparison are generalized into guiding dimensions for moral considerations along which all three options of action should be evaluated when programming ASs for dilemmas involving their users.