RMZ Science Works podcast | Listen online for free

Available Episodes

5 of 16

Stefan Skupien: Defining science for and in ‘Eastern Germany’ in right-wing populism
Defining Science for and in ‘Eastern Germany’ in right-wing populism “Eastern Germany”, as a socio-political and geographical region, hosts significant scientific infrastructure and innovation funding, yet it has also seen a marked rise in populist voting patterns. Parties such as the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and emerging movements like Bündnis Sarah Wagenknecht (BSW) position themselves as challengers to established societal frameworks. Within populist rhetoric, a recurring theme is the critique of scientific fields, framed within a broader opposition between “the virtuous people” and “the experts.” (u.a. Bellilo 2022, Mede et.al. 2020, Eslen-Ziya and Giorgi, Ed. 2022).This study undertakes an explorative, science policy-oriented critical discourse analysis of AfD election programs and speeches at state parliaments, focusing on their vision for science and its role in society. By searching for recurring patterns and expressions, the studyaims to uncover how populist narratives seek to define and reshape science policy in “Eastern Germany” at the federal state level.While this is an explorative study, it expects to identify further research questions at the intersection of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and science policy research. It aims to contribute to broader debates on how populist movements engage with science and how patterns of discrediting expertise diffuse between the globally connected right-wing movements. Recognizing the limitations of an explorative approach, this contribution provides a foundation for future, more comprehensive analyses of the science populism-dynamic.
--------
27:02
Malte Jansen/ Aishvarya Aravindan Rajagopal: The Reproducibility and Robustness of Secondary Analyses in Educational Research: The Role of Publication Bias and Researcher Degrees of Freedom
Many educational researchers conduct secondary data analysis using large-scale school assessment studies that usually include various variables based on representative samples. To access such data, researchers must often apply by submitting a research proposal. Our project aims to examine the reproducibility and robustness of secondary data analyses from a research data center that offers over 70 educational studies for secondary analyses. This approach provides us with a unique database of data usage applications. In these applications, researchers describe their central questions, hypotheses, and planned analytic approach. Between 2008 and 2020, around 600 data applications from over 900 researchers resulted in around 180 publications. Based on this data and an additional survey of applicants about their project results, we will examine which data applications result in publications. Second, we will reproduce the published results of a selected subsample of data applications by using the information given by researchers in the publication. This direct reproduction of study results might provide hints on improving transparent descriptions of the research process. Third, we will explore the heterogeneity in effect estimates introduced by different analytical strategies and datasets using robustness checks on a smaller subsample of publications. The talk will overview the project and present the first results.
--------
51:39
Stefanie Haustein: Challenges of closed vs opportunities of open: A data feminist reflection on the bibliometrics community’s shift to open infrastructure
For decades, research assessment infrastructure has been shaped by closed, centralized systems that prioritize selectivity, reinforce hierarchies, and define what counts as scholarly impact. This talk traces the historical evolution of bibliometrics, from the first citation analysis in the early 20th century via the revolutionary development of the Science Citation Index to the dominance of commercial data analytics companies like Clarivate and Elsevier today. The talk will highlight how these infrastructures have perpetuated power imbalances—determining who gets to define impact, what types of knowledge are valued, and whose labor is made visible.Currently research assessment and the underlying bibliometric infrastructure are undergoing a transformation. The increasing availability of open bibliographic sources (e.g., Crossref, OpenAlex, DataCite, DOAJ), metadata accessibility, and alternative models of research evaluation are challenging traditional hierarchies and enabling more inclusive and transparent assessment practices.Using a data feminist lens, this talk will critically examine both the past and present of research assessment infrastructure, advocating for a shift that embraces pluralism, contextualizes metrics, and recognizes the diverse contributions that shape scholarly knowledge. By reflecting on historical lessons and current developments, we can envision a research assessment system that is more equitable, open, and reflective of the complexities of academic work.
--------
49:17
Cornelia Schendzielorz/Martin Reinhart: The role of research collaborations in the governance of science (Vortrag auf Deutsch)
Our contribution is dedicated to the topic of large research collaborations. We frame the issue of large research collaborations in the context of their long history in the study of science, which is closely related to the notion of Big Science (De Solla Price 1963). Beyond the quantitative growth of science in various aspects such as publications, journals, personnel, funding, etc., we focus our attention on the fact that considering the big picture of science implies taking into account the social order of science (Merton 1938, Barber 1953). From the beginnings of the sociology of science (Bernal 1939, Merton 1942, Polanyi, 1962, Pielke 2014, Wray 2023) to the present day, this question has been linked to the much broader question of how science is embedded in society and how it relates to politics (Jasanoff 1990, Pielke 2007, Kitcher 2011). Consequently, we argue that large research collaborations are a suitable object of study for an empirical theory of science because these two central questions of the social order of science and the relationship between science and society coincide in this object.Against this background, our contribution aims to empirically investigate how the production of scientific knowledge is organised in concrete working contexts of large research collaborations. Our paper is structured as follows: First, we draw on the research literature to explain why the internal organisation and governance of large research collaborations is an increasingly controversial issue. (Hallonsten 2016, Cramer and Hallonsten 2020, Baneke 2020). We then elaborate on routinely identified points of contention in research collaborations, which also represent necessary transition points in the process of developing internal social order and governance. We do so by drawing on theoretical literature, empirical case studies from the literature (Rüland 2023, Galison et al 2023, Jerabkova et al 2023, 2024), and two examples from our own ongoing research. In particular, we will look at governance issues such as membership, distribution of power and recognition in the cases of the Next Generation Event Horizon Telescope (ngEHT) and the European Southern Observatory (ESO). Based on this cursory overview, we will explore the extent to which key challenges in the governance of large research collaborations recur to implicit or explicit normative presuppositions, and how these normative presuppositions relate to forms of political self-governance.
--------
41:13
Holger Straßheim: Politische Epistemologie
Der Beitrag setzt sich mit Perspektiven der politischen Epistemologie auseinander, die sich mittlerweile zu einem soziologischen, politikwissenschaftlichen, philosophischen und historischen Brückenkonzept entwickelt hat. Trotz unterschiedlicher disziplinärer Zugänge lassen sich gemeinsame Kernelemente und ähnliche Theoriestrategien ausmachen: Immer geht es dabei um die Identifikation jener Mechanismen, die Erkenntnis und Ordnung, Expertise und Entscheiden miteinander vermitteln. Politische Epistemologien fragen nach den Praktiken bzw. Diskursen der Ko-Konstruktion von politischer und epistemischer Autorität. Sie vergleichen jene kulturellen und institutionellen Arrangements, in denen Expertise an Legitimität und Geltungsmacht gewinnt (oder verliert). Während ‚objektivistische Epistemologien' auf eine Rationalisierung der Politik durch die Wissenschaft hoffen, ist die politische Epistemologie skeptischer. Mit der globalen Ausweitung von Kommunikations- und Interaktionshorizonten verbinden sich vielmehr - so eine leitende Vermutung - sehr unterschiedliche, potentiell umstrittene Wege der wechselseitigen Durchdringung von Politik und Wissenschaft und damit auch konkurrierende Legitimitäts- und Rationalitätsvorstellungen. Der Beitrag skizziert zunächst Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen den verschiedenen Zugängen zur politischen Epistemologie und arbeitet Kernkonzepte und -erkenntnisse heraus. Ein zweiter Teil fokussiert dann anhand von Beispielen auf politisch-epistemische Mechanismen der Ko-Konstruktion. Der Vortrag schließt mit Überlegungen zu Konfliktdynamiken im Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Politik unter den Bedingungen der Weltgesellschaft.
--------
39:07