Dr. Jens Ambrasat

Profil

Zusammenfassung

Dr. Jens Ambrasat erforscht, wie Menschen Gesellschaft verstehen und bewerten — insbesondere die emotionalen und kognitiven Bedeutungen von sozialen Konzepten wie Autorität und Gemeinschaft. Er nutzt Umfragen und experimentelle Methoden, um zu untersuchen, wie soziale Unterschiede (Schicht, Nachbarschaft, Karrierestatus) die Wahrnehmung und das Vertrauen zwischen Menschen prägen. Seine Expertise ist wertvoll für Organisationen, die verstehen möchten, wie ihre Mitarbeitenden oder Zielgruppen soziale Situationen interpretieren und darauf reagieren.

Skills

Name

Dr. Jens Ambrasat

Titel

Dr.

Fakultät

Philosophische Fakultät

Institut

Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft

Arbeitsgruppe

Wissenschaftsforschung mit Schwerpunkt Evaluationsforschung

E-Mail

🔒 nur für eingeloggte sichtbarAnmelden

Telefon

🔒 nur für eingeloggte sichtbarAnmelden

HU-FIS-Profil

Quelle ↗

Zuletzt gescrapt

28.6.2026, 01:02:29

• TransferSurvey

  Quelle ↗

  Förderer: Andere Senatsverwaltungen Zeitraum: 01/2025 - 02/2029 Projektleitung: Dr. Jens Ambrasat

🔒 Das System hat 185 mögliche Industrie-Partner gefunden — Firmen, Scores und Begründungen sind nur für eingeloggte Nutzer:innen sichtbar. Anmelden

• Consensus and stratification in the affective meaning of human sociality

  2014

  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 48 Zitationen · DOI

  We investigate intrasocietal consensus and variation in affective meanings of concepts related to authority and community, two elementary forms of human sociality. Survey participants (n = 2,849) from different socioeconomic status (SES) groups in German society provided ratings of 909 social concepts along three basic dimensions of affective meaning. Results show widespread consensus on these meanings within society and demonstrate that a meaningful structure of socially shared knowledge emerges from organizing concepts according to their affective similarity. The consensus finding is further qualified by evidence for subtle systematic variation along SES differences. In relation to affectively neutral words, high-status individuals evaluate intimacy-related and socially desirable concepts as less positive and powerful than middle- or low-status individuals, while perceiving antisocial concepts as relatively more threatening. This systematic variation across SES groups suggests that the affective meaning of sociality is to some degree a function of social stratification.

• Unpacking the Habitus: Meaning Making Across Lifestyles

  2016

  Sociological Forum · 26 Zitationen · DOI

  The concept of habitus refers to socially stratified patterns of perception, classification, and thinking that are supposed to bring about specific lifestyles. Until now, research on the links between stratification and lifestyles has accounted for the habitus mainly in conceptual and theoretical terms, and studies directly measuring habitus and its association with stratification and lifestyles are rare. The present study conceptualizes the habitus as an individual‐level pattern of meaning making and suggests an operationalization that is commonly used in identity research. Using survey data of 3,438 respondents, the study investigates associations between different lifestyles and patterns of meaning making. Results show, first, that self‐related meanings vary systematically across lifestyle categories and mirror respondents' stratification position. Second, the meanings of various social concepts also vary significantly across lifestyle categories and partly reflect descriptive lifestyle characteristics. In sum, the study presents a plausible operationalization of (parts of) the habitus and advances our understanding of its mediating position between stratification and lifestyles.

• Structured Diversity – The changing landscape of doctoral training in Germany after the introduction of structured doctoral programs

  2017

  Research Evaluation · 23 Zitationen · DOI

  The introduction of structured doctoral programs (SDPs) is changing the conditions of doctoral training in Europe and worldwide. SDPs were introduced to reorganize doctoral training to make it more transparent and to improve the quality of doctoral training and supervision. This article suggests a conceptual framework to assess the outcome of these goals against the backdrop of existing pathways toward the doctorate, namely, the doctoral status group research assistants, scholarship holders, and external candidates. Based on empirical data from the large longitudinal study on doctoral candidates in Germany, ProFile, we describe the amount of structuration and formalization within those status groups and compare it to the structure of SDPs. Results reveal that traditional status groups already structure the context of doctoral training remarkably. In front of this backdrop, SDPs change the landscape in the expected way by improved transparency, course offers, and increased exchange with the supervisor. However, the effects of SDP membership vary between traditional status groups; thus, not all status groups profit to the same degree. We conclude that the structure of doctoral training has diversified through the introduction of SDPs and provides an outlook on the changes that can be expected if the number of SDPs increases.

Aus HU-FIS sind keine Kooperationen für diese Person gemeldet.