Der Vortrag skizziert eingangs einen allgemeinen Begriff der Vulnerabilität sozialer Systeme, auf der Basis einer Nachzeichnung der interdisziplinären Begriffsentwicklung zu Vulnerabilität und verwandten Begriffsfeldern (Bedrohung, Risiko). Der Vortrag wählt dann exemplarisch eine zentrale Innovation in der Geschichte funktionaler Differenzierung der Gesellschaft: den Fall der politischen Demokratie. Die Vulnerabilität von Demokratie ist offensichtlich: Demokratie ruht auf Vollinklusion, die eben auch Vollinklusion der Feinde der Demokratie ist; ihr drohen jederzeit Disbalancen der Gewaltenteilung, die oft Legislative und Judikative gegeneinander stellen; ihre entschiedenste Form, die direkte Demokratie, kann zu einer Tyrannei der Mehrheit führen; politische (Parteien-)Konkurrenz auf Polarisierung und Feindschaft hinauslaufen; der Populismus das Volk als eine differenzlose Einheit denken und damit den direkten Weg in den Autoritarismus bahnen; schließlich strategische politische Kommunikation die Einsicht in Sachlagen eher verstellen. Der Vortrag analysiert diese strukturell in die liberale Demokratie eingebaute Volatilität und Vulnerabilität und fragt auf dieser Basis nach der Zukunft von Demokratie.

The concept of vulnerability has been a key concept in studies of disasters and climate change. It started as a critical entry-point to unravel the socially produced ways in which groups are rendered safe or unsafe in view of hazards. The concept has been a radical move in disaster studies as it took the natural out of natural disasters, and in focusing on issues like power and inequality as factors that turn the occurrence of a hazard into a disaster.

Over the years the concept has increasingly veered away from its structural and critical content to become co-opted as an individual property of people – vulnerable by bad luck or because of their own fault - that need special concern. Moreover, the concept of vulnerability has partly been overtaken by resilience. Increasingly, people (even disadvantaged people) have begun to be considered as resilient, with the capacities to organise, resist, learn, change and adapt. Adaptation, has become the slogan and the proposed solution to the problem of adjusting human systems to actual or expected climatic stimuli.

This keynote will review this political history of the concept of vulnerability and then explore how it plays a role in everyday politics of current humanitarian action. How important is vulnerability, how is it measured and who gets included or excluded in aid programmes.

Uncertainty is often considered to be a problem, meaning that it should be avoided. At the same time, uncertainty is a necessary condition for profit and for many social activities like art and sport. A societal analysis centered around uncertainty is presented, zooming in on the role of uncertainty in relation to truth.
Historically the question of right and wrong, and even truth, was a matter of struggle and even open conflict. Early scientists like Galileo Galilei experienced what it meant to challenge received ideas of truth. Also at the individual level, the truth was determined as the outcome
of a conflict, for example, in the form of a duel. The outcome of the duel determined what should prevail, and this settled the issue, and reduced the uncertainty about what was right and wrong.
Science is another way of determining what is true and false, though normative issues normally are bracketed. Science let truth grow in a collective process of mutual adjustment.
The talk addresses ways to find out what is true and false. The two contrasting cases of war and science are analyzed to understand how uncertainty can be reduced in different ways.

As economic infrastructures in general are becoming more and more digitalized, there is a growing need to cover new kinds of potential losses that arise directly from datafication itself. This paper asks: How are the new uncertainties and vulnerabilities, created by intensive datafication, managed by cyber insurance? Three themes in this context are of especial interest to sociologists. First, cyber vulnerability is a revealing case of what can be called the looping effect of uncertainty management: although datafication itself often is regarded as a means of managing uncertainty, it obviously generates new threats as well. Second, wherever new uncertainties emerge, the insurance industry sees the potential for new business. This explains the opportunity for cyber insurance that covers losses relating to damage to or loss of data from information technology systems and networks, and that is one of fastest-growing lines of insurance. Finally, insurance in general is a technology that relies on the collective response to uncertainty; there are no insurance policies for individuals only. Hence, the question arises: through what kinds of mechanisms of pooling are the risks created by digitalization spread, and how are the related responsibilities redistributed?

The idea of risk asserts that nothing happens by chance. Calculations of risks identify potential causes of damage and call for actions to prevent adverse outcomes. Against definitions of what is considered normal, the formulation of thresholds, standards, recommendations are formulated to guide individual and collective actions. Efforts to regulate future events inevitably set in motion political or normative processes, through which some individuals or groups are urged to act. However, depending on their multiple relations to the situation, they do not necessarily agree on what is best and on who is accountable for danger. As observed around multiple issues, decisions about risks are unlikely to be consensual.
Empirical studies addressing experiences of risks in genetic or prenatal screening, in COVID-19 or other infectious diseases, to name only a few examples, keep revealing tensions generated by prevention interventions as proposed by medicine and public health. People do not systematically adhere to professional recommendations, they question the value of evidence against the omnipresent uncertainty and wonder about the relevance of early interventions. Reflexivity and resistance towards prevention also reveal critics towards health institutions, based on their past performance and their biases. The presentation will discuss some of the recurrent social mechanisms that are revealed by controversies around health risks. Empirical studies from this field provide insights on how to understand actual experiences of vulnerability and danger in society more broadly and contribute to social theory of risks.

The world is confronted with extraordinary crises, and the society is in the midst of a transition to a new era, in which new global players arise and transform the world order (Murphy, 2022). This fundamental change breaks down the logic of hegemonial western culture and challenges established center and periphery relationships. As Karl E. Weick indicates, the periphery promotes huge variations that challenge the logic of stable organizational sensemaking in the flow of unexpected experiences (Weick et al., 2005). A number of new experiences and vulnerabilities arise that were not foreseen in times of multiple crises. In this context, the idea of resilience becomes especially relevant in order to analyze mechanisms working against the destruction of fundamental values and rights of actors in the 21st century (Pinheiro et al., 2022; Trondal et al., 2022).
Universities are among the most resilient organizations, existing through the flow of time (Frank & Meyer, 2020). On the one hand, they guarantee the safety net of fundamental values and are places of advancement and progression of new knowledge and ideas. On the other hand, inequalities are deeply intertwined with the organizational structures and processes of universities and regularly fall back to their normal state without progression and fundamental change. Therefore, we develop a holistic understanding of vulnerability to refine this concept in the direction of sensitivity and openness for experiences with extensive learning and reflection, as well as non-sensitivity and closedness for experiences without these possibilities, characterized by the regressive nature of vulnerability (Gilson, 2013; Jackson, 2018). Differentiating between these two perspectives pushes vulnerability and resilience research forward in that new strategies break down the logic of organizational myths and foster a more precise organizational understanding of unexpected events.

In the following we dive deeper into the realms of organizational sensemaking and establish a link to institutional theory (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Moreno-Luzon et al., 2018; Weick et al., 2005). We develop a conceptual model that links resilience theory, institutional theory, and organizational sensemaking. Afterwards, the idea of organizational myth and its characteristics are considered in more detail. They are directly linked to the creation of symbolic and official structures of reality versus unofficial structures of reality, which are both drivers of organizational myths. These ideas are further refined by the concept of storytelling in the creation of organizational myths within informal networks. This marks a turning point in the way that new strategies fostering self-reflection and metacognitive abilities are integrated into the inner core of the university as an organization.

We discuss and illustrate our conceptual framework by taking the university as an exemplary case. We refer to two examples that we believe point to different forms of organizational vulnerability: first, the enduring discussion about missing equality of opportunities in universities and their ‘unwillingness’ to structural change; and second the COVID-19 pandemic and the ‘unpreparedness’ for immediate transition to digital learning. The conclusion reflects upon the given insights for the university as an organization and further research questions to solve fundamental problems within the spheres of organizational resilience.

The following questions will be addressed:
How can a crisis be anticipated at an early stage? What mechanisms are promising for withstanding internal/external threats? How can we theoretically capture the relationship between vulnerabilities, resilience, and institutional theory? What is the contribution of sociology and institutional theory to facing specific crises? What are the factors promoting the breakdown of the logic of organizational myths arising in times of multiple crises?

To talk of the vulnerability and resilience of educational organisations shifts attention to essential uncertainties and critical risks of ongoing social transformations. At the same time, these concepts have an obvious normative and largely affirmative undertone. In this presentation, I take an outsider‘s view on the concepts of vulnerability and resilience and explore the positive and negative affordances of these concepts for critical educational research. The theoretical perspective that informs this endeavour is inspired by French pragmatic sociology, more specifically the Sociology of Critique and Actor-Network-Theory. These strands of sociological research and theory building offer a rich repertoire of analytical heuristics for understanding both the persistence and the transformation of social orders (such as persistent educational inequalities). Most importantly, they provide a theoretical foundation for reflecting how social research with its conceptual repertoire and research practices itself is entangled in processes of social change.

I take the rise of AI-based educational technologies - as the latest stage of the digital transformation of education – as concrete example. With the emergence of such adaptive technologies, digital tools become deeply ingrained in the everyday workings of educational institutions and practices of pedagogical professionals. Crucially, they (1) promise to take over key justice-related tasks such as assessing students, projecting individual educational pathways, and moulding learning experiences and (2) they imply the involvement of new actors and organisations in the transformation of educational organisations, including private companies and novel state agencies. Based on early findings from an ongoing SNSF-funded research project, I discuss how the concepts of resilience and vulnerability let us grasp some aspects of these dynamics, but threaten to hide others from sight. Among others, they do not allow to take the moral and political ambiguity of the digital transformation. Most importantly, they suggest a particular understanding of the tasks and tools of critical educational research that does not do justice to the intricate involvement of social researcher into the phenomena they study. The profound reconfigurations of educational organisations require that we reconsider our own role and combine empirical research with engaging in critical dialogue with various actors involved in and affected by the digital transformation of education.

The presentation addresses relationships between crises, digital transformation, vulnerability, and resilience in the field of schooling. In particular, it focuses on what is in the fields of sociology and education increasingly discussed as digitality (Stalder 2021), that is: the growing interwovenness of social practice and datafied infrastructures (e.g., network dynamics and effects; hybrid forms of decision-making; feedback loops; etc.). This intervowenness, which goes way beyond the mere existence of hard- and software, on the one hand deeply affects how crises are mediated, processed, and experienced. On the other hand, it continuously produces crises itself (see, for instance, the current debates about generative AI chatbots).
Over the past years, the concept of digitality has increasingly been discussed also in the field of school policy (e.g., KMK 2021). More specifically, there are growing calls to move away from an instrumental, technology-centered view in school digitization (as it was the case throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, or in funding schemes such as the Digitalpakt in Germany or Digisprong in Belgium), and towards a much broader critical engagement with, and active shaping of datafied infrastructures (e.g., platforms, learning management systems, communication tools, learning apps) (see also Hartong et al. 2022). In such a view, the focus is simultaneously shifted towards digital transformation as an ongoing whole-school development process that must necessarily be anchored in individual schools´ contexts, normative values, and visions.
Interestingly, despite its rising political and also scientific popularity, digitality-oriented school transformation still stands in sharp contrast with the reality of most schools, which has remained primarily focused on tablet/smartboard implementation, quick solutions, standardized ‘ready-to-use’ systems, or usage skills (see also Selwyn 2015). This presentation argues that one important reason for this discrepancy lies in the need, but also the reluctance to systematically (re)politicize both education and technology (Macgilchrist 2021; see also Heldt & Krösche 2023), that is to say, to link digital school development to continuous normative considerations and debate. It is exactly that interlinkage which at the same time can empower schools to build organizational/pedagogical resilience to (perma)crises.
To illuminate how a more systematic engagement with digitality-oriented school transformation can look like, this presentation draws on a German-Belgian project (SMASCH, Smart Schools, www.smasch.eu), which for a duration of four years intensively works with 13 schools. The collaboration hereby includes multiple workshops, process consultancy, but also various co-design activities (see also Richter & Allert 2017). From a research perspective, the project brings together expertise from organizational sociology, sociology of education, science and technology/critical data studies, and media pedagogy.
The presented findings shed light, on the one hand, on the manifold dynamics (including broad organizational tensions) that are likely to evolve when schools start to systematically engage with digitality. On the other hand, the findings also show which strategies and instruments can nevertheless be developed in schools to enhance long-term transformation, which indeed brings with it stronger resilience to crises.

The concept of ethnic minority entrepreneurs in the economy represents the employment patterns in a particular country. Immigrants often experience discrimination and exclusion in the labor market and the outcome of this process is a high rate of unemployment. On the contrary, the ethnic economy could be regarded as a promising alternative to unemployment among immigrants. With this decision, immigrant entrepreneurs create their businesses and support other immigrants if the business becomes successful. Besides contributing to the economics of the countries, immigrant entrepreneurs also open the way for the integration of immigrants in the countries of settlement. In Italy, migrants from Turkey often are self-employed in the kebab fast-food restaurant sector. The case of Turkish immigrants in Milano presents the power of the ethnic economy in terms of integration. This study addresses the issue of Turkish immigration to Italy/Milano, underlines its special character, and discusses the integration problem arising and their problem-solving method. This study also delineates the current situation of Turkish immigrants, who constitute one of the smallest groups of all immigrants in Italy and who are largely undocumented. Integration of Turkish migrants’ profiles in Milano will be classified by integration indicators such as labor market participation, language skills, citizenship, political participation, level of intermarriage and belonging feeling.

This paper explores the unique challenges faced by newly regularized migrants who have experienced long-lasting illegalization. Adopting a life course perspective,it sheds light on distinct vulnerabilization processes they still experience (or do not experience anymore) related to legal status stratification.
The empirical data consist of repeated qualitative interviews conducted with individuals transitioning out of undocumented status during the implementation of the "Operation Papyrus" extraordinary regularization program in Geneva, Switzerland. The findings reveal that after regularization participants felt enormously relieved not to be deportable at any moment anymore; however, three key processes related to legal status stratification continued to make them feel vulnerable: 1) the lasting and potentially irreversible consequences of past illegalization; 2) the challenges of transitioning between legal statuses; and 3) the vulnerabilities stemming from newly obtained, conditional, short-term, and revocable residence permits. The findings also uncover mechanisms of reinforcement among these processes while these are also exacerbated by other co-occurring vulnerabilizing situations (such as the context of the COVID-19 pandemic).
Understanding the complex mechanisms through which vulnerability is created and maintained over time helps to formulate recommendations for designing regularization programs that better mitigate vulnerability, while promoting social cohesion.

This study investigates the impact of the 2019 Swiss reform of the foreigner and integration law on hidden poverty among foreigners, focusing on the city of Basel. As Western nations grapple with the balancing of existing social benefits, particularly in an era of austerity, social assistance to the poor becomes pivotal. However, the phenomenon of non-take-up, where eligible individuals refrain from seeking public support, introduces other challenges related to poverty. The study aims to address the question: Did the 2019 reform, linking residential permits to independence from social assistance, increase hidden poverty among foreigners in Switzerland? The study employs a difference-in-difference approach using linked tax, population, and social assistance registers for the period 2016-2020. This enables the assessment of non-take-up by simulating eligibility based on legal standards, differentiating between those who sought assistance and those who did not. Basel, a canton with a diverse population, serves as a case study. Preliminary results indicate a slight decline in non-take-up rates until 2018, followed by increases in 2019 and a sharp spike in 2020. While the social assistance rate decreased from 2016 to 2019, 2020 witnessed a simultaneous drop in recipients and a rise in individuals below the poverty line. Analysis using the difference-in-difference method reveals that the 2019 reform had a significant impact on third-country nationals with a C permanent residence permit in Basel. The probability of not receiving benefits for this group increased substantially from 26.7% in 2018 to 33.8% in 2020, suggesting a link between the reform and increased hidden poverty. This study contributes to the understanding of the dynamics between welfare reforms, immigration policies, and hidden poverty, offering insights into the consequences of tightening access to social assistance for specific migrant groups.

Krisen und Katastrophen treffen Menschen unterschiedlich hart. Häufig korreliert die (soziale) Vulnerabilität mit sozial-demo¬graphischen Merkmalen: Alter, Geschlecht, sozialer Status/Einkommen, Krankheiten usw. sind wichtige Indi¬katoren für die Wahrscheinlichkeit überdurchschnittlich starker Betroffenheit. Aber: Keine Krise oder Katastrophe ist wie eine andere, vielmehr zeigt sich in einem spezifischen sozialen und räumlichen Kontext häufig eine ganz andere Vulnerabilität, als sie statistisch zu erwarten gewesen wäre.
So resultiert Vulnerabilität in einer Pandemie bspw. nicht allein aus Vorer¬krank¬ungen, sondern auch aus einer sozialen Position, die z. B. berufsbedingt die Wahr¬schein¬lichkeit einer Infektion oder die Betroffenheit von den Folgen der vielfältigen pande¬mie¬bezogenen Maßnahmen erhöht. In einem Hoch¬wasser ist die räumliche Lage der Wohnung oder des Hauses ein wesentlicher Vulnerabilitätsfaktor, aber das Risiko, das Leben zu verlieren, wird vielleicht noch mehr durch das Zusammenspiel unterschiedlicher Faktoren geprägt, deren Kritikalität sich erst im Zuge der Lageentwicklung konkretisiert.
Auch nach 50 Jahren Forschung im Bereich der „Vulnerabilitätswissenschaft“ (Cutter, 2003, S. 1) bilden Ansätze zur Erfassung von Vulnerabilität die kontextuellen und prozessualen sozialen Erscheinungsformen sowie das tatsächliche Erleben der Betroffenen nach einer Katastrophe unzureichend ab. Schlecht in¬formiert über tatsächliche Vulnerabilitäten können Politiken diese auch nicht gezielt adressieren. Mit syste¬ma¬tischen Analy¬sen wäre bspw. eine sehr viel differenziertere Maßnahmen¬planung (z. B. mit sozialraumspezifischen Informations- und Impfkampagnen und Motivations¬unter¬stützungen oder gezielten Hilfs-maßnahmen aufgrund sozial¬räumlich verdichteter Folgen der Lock¬downs) während der SARS-CoV-2 Pandemie möglich gewesen.
An der Katastrophenforschungsstelle (KFS) verorten wir Vulnerabilität in einem Hiatus zwischen Habitus und Feldstrukturen. Die im Vortrag vorgestellte und an Beispielen veranschaulichte sozialtheoretische Fundierung von Vulnerabilität im Anschluss an die Arbeiten Pierre Bourdieus erlaubt die Entstehung und konsequente Veränderung von Vulnerabilität in sozialen Alltagsstrukturen prozessual zu betrachten und zu verstehen, wie sich katastrophaler sozialer Wandel in (alltägliche) soziale Strukturen (zurück)übersetzt – und vice versa.

Verschiedene Krisen- und Katastrophensituationen der vergangenen Jahre, wie etwa die Flüchtlingssituation 2015/16, die COVID-19-Pandemie, das Hochwasser in Teilen Deutschlands oder auch die Energiemangellage offenbaren eine Vielgestaltigkeit vulnerabler Strukturen innerhalb unseres gesellschaftlichen Gefüges. Sie geben aber ebenso eine enorme Anpassungsfähigkeit der Bevölkerung zu erkennen, die vermehrt zum Ausgangspunkt politischer und wissenschaftlicher Diskussionen über die Resilienz von Gemeinschaften in Krisen und Katastrophen wird. Begriffe wie gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhalt und soziales Kapital erfahren vor allem im Zusammenhang mit der Krisenbewältigung und Katastrophenaufarbeitung Hochkonjunktur.
Als Netzwerkressource drückt sich der Wert sozialen Kapitals in den eingegangenen Beziehungen mit anderen Menschen aus. Soziale Netzwerke bilden den Nährboden für geteilte Werte und Normen sowie vertrauensvolle Kooperationen. In der theoretischen Auslegung von sozialem Kapital als Kollektivgut ist davon auszugehen, dass soziales Vertrauen sowie Normen der Gegenseitigkeit und Toleranz zusammen mit sozialen Netzwerken, einer Gruppe bzw. Gemeinschaften ermöglichen, kollektiv zu handeln. Die Grundlage für prosoziales Unterstützungsverhalten wird demnach in alltäglichen sozialen Prozessen und Strukturen gebildet. Anders ausgedrückt, hängt der Grad gesellschaftlicher Resilienz im Wesentlichen von der Intaktheit alltäglicher Prozesse der Vergemeinschaftung ab. Bei der Entwicklung von Resilienzstrategien müssen daher zunächst die sozialen und sozialstrukturellen Bedingungen in den Blick genommen und nachhaltig gestärkt werden.
Dass lokales Sozialkapital bei der Bewältigung von Krisen und Katastrophen von hohem Stellenwert ist, lässt sich auch anhand empirischen Datenmaterials aus dem Forschungsprojekt „Entwicklung eines Sozialkapital-Radars für den sozialraumorientierten Bevölkerungsschutz (Sokapi-R)“ belegen. Mittels Mehrebenenmodellierung und Sozialraumkartierung wird im Vortrag der negative Einfluss sozialer Strukturen gesellschaftlicher Vulnerabilität auf die Unterstützungsbereitschaft in Krisen und Katastrophen erläutert. Ferner wird mithilfe der Ergebnisse eines Strukturgleichungsmodells gezeigt, wie spezifische Maßnahmen der individuellen Notfallvorsorge durch das vertikale Vertrauen in Organisationen des Bevölkerungsschutzes und der subjektiven Risikowahrnehmung beeinflusst werden. Daneben verdeutlichen die Ergebnisse eines faktoriellen Surveys, welchen Einfluss reziproke Gegenseitigkeitsnormen, die lokale Ortsverbundenheit und die Art der eingeforderten Unterstützungsleistung auf die Hilfsbereitschaft der Menschen in Krisen und Katastrophen haben.
Gestützt auf den Erkenntnissen der empirischen Untersuchungen im Projekt Sokapi-R, wird herausgearbeitet, wie durch eine stärkere Sozialraumorientierung im Bevölkerungsschutz, sowohl die individuelle Notfallvorsorge als auch die Bereitschaft der Bewohner:innen, sich bei der Bewältigung von lokalen Problemlagen auf breiter Basis zu engagieren, erhöht werden kann. Während der eher negativ konnotierte Begriff der Vulnerabilität auf situative Verletzlichkeiten innerhalb der Gesellschaft hinweist, wird im Vortrag ein sozialwissenschaftlich fundierter, proaktiver Ansatz der Resilienzförderung aufgezeigt, bei dem lokale Programme und Strategien nicht unbedingt auf spezifische Katastrophen ausgerichtet sein müssen, damit die Bewohner:innen eines Stadtviertels davon profitieren. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird ein in Sokapi-R entwickeltes interaktives Dashboard vorgestellt, mit dem Akteur:innen des Bevölkerungsschutzes soziale Unterstützung vor dem Hintergrund unterschiedlicher sozialräumlicher Bedingungen prognostizieren können, um limitierte Ressourcen im Ereignisfall besser zu priorisieren sowie ereignisunabhängig am Auf- und Ausbau sozialer Infrastrukturen im Sozialraum mitzuwirken.

Die Praxis des Krisenmanagements wird traditionell von mentalen Modellen und Handlungslogiken aus der Verwaltung, aus den Ingenieurwissenschaften und der (Notfall-) Medizin determiniert; sozialwissenschaftliche Expertise bleibt dabei oftmals unberücksichtigt (Lüttschwager et al., 2022). Erst in der jüngeren Vergangenheit finden Theorien und Modelle aus der Katastrophensoziologie, der Notfallpsychologie und der Notfallpädagogik zunehmende Beachtung (Helmerichs et al., 2017).
Vor diesem Hintergrund wurde während der Coronavirus-Pandemie in einer nordrhein-westfälischen Großstadt ein kommunales psychosoziales Krisenmanagement eingerichtet, das in dieser Form formell bislang nicht vorgesehen ist: In einem Pilotprojekt sollten besondere Vulnerabilitäten, Bedarfe und Bedürfnisse einzelner Bevölkerungsgruppen identifiziert werden, um adäquate Unterstützungsangebote etablieren zu können (Karutz & Tinla, 2021).
Basierend auf dem Grundgedanken, die stadtgesellschaftliche Resilienz zu stärken, wurden psychosoziale Lagebilder erstellt und zielgruppenspezifische Handlungsempfehlungen für den städtischen Krisenstab erarbeitet – beispielsweise zur Psychosozialen Notfallversorgung und zur Krisenkommunikation, aber auch zur Gestaltung krisenspezifischer Bildungsangebote sowie zum Umgang mit Spontanhelferinitiativen.
Die gesammelten Erfahrungen wurden im Auftrag des deutschen Bundesamtes für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe dokumentiert und kritisch reflektiert (Karutz et al., 2022). Dabei sind Konfliktlinien und Spannungsverhältnisse deutlich geworden, deren Kenntnis für die gelingende Bewältigung künftiger Krisen von erheblicher Bedeutung zu sein scheint.
Zumindest teilweise basieren Entscheidungsprozesse demnach nicht auf empirisch begründeter Erkenntnis, sondern auf subjektiven und nicht selten problematischen Vorannahmen; vereinzelt haben sich Illusionen und Mythen als handlungsleitend erwiesen. Die Erkennbarkeit besonderer Vulnerabilitäten und Risiken ist mit methodischen und strukturellen Herausforderungen verbunden. Darüber hinaus ist die Etablierung niedrigschwellig erreichbarer und tatsächlich hilfreicher Unterstützungsangebote für einzelne Bevölkerungsgruppen in der Praxis schwieriger als es sich auf den ersten Blick vermuten lässt. Nicht zuletzt ist erkennbar geworden, dass auf verschiedenen Handlungsebenen unterschiedliche, mitunter sogar gegensätzliche Krisenmanagement- und Kommunikationsstrategien verfolgt worden, denen wiederum unterschiedliche Gesellschaftsbilder, Erwartungen und Befürchtungen zugrunde gelegen haben.
Im Vortrag wird zunächst ein Überblick über die im Einzelnen gesammelten Erfahrungen gegeben. Im Anschluss daran werden Forschungsbedarfe und Vorschläge für die Weiterentwicklung von Krisenmanagementstrategien aufgezeigt.

Literatur
Helmerichs, J.; Karutz, H.; Geier, W. (2017). Psychosoziales Krisenmanagement. In: Karutz, H.; Geier, W.; Mitschke, T. (Hg.). Bevölkerungsschutz. Notfallvorsorge und Krisenmanagement in Theorie und Praxis. Heidelberg: Springer, S. 285-300.