Tanja Bogusz: Meereswissen explorieren. Heterogene Kollaborationen an der Station Marine Concarneau
Biologische Stationen wurden in den STS bislang maßgeblich als „Grenzobjekte“ (Star & Griesemer) zwischen Feld und Labor (Kohler) untersucht. Im Gegensatz zu zeitlich begrenzten Expeditionen, oder zur „reinen“ Laborforschung praktizieren Meeres-Stationen folglich „Wissenschaft mit den Füßen im Wasser" und sind zugleich in konkreten lokalen Gesellschaften verortet. Durch ihren spezifischen Standort befinden sie sich somit am Kreuzpunkt zwischen zwei Gebieten, die in der modernen Wissenschaftsorganisation als voneinander getrennt verstanden wurden – Meer und Gesellschaft. Meeresstationen verbinden diese nicht nur epistemisch, sondern auch physisch und temporal. Entsprechend ermöglichen Meeres-Stationen multiple Formen der Organisation von Meer-Gesellschafts-Beziehungen und marinen Wissens. Nach einer Schätzung der World Association of Marine Stations (WAMS) existieren rund tausend Meeres-Stationen weltweit. In einer Zeit jedoch, in der nachhaltige Zukünfte für Küstenbevölkerungen häufig Anlass für öko-soziale und politische Polarisierungen sind, handelt es sich bei der Integration multipler Formen von Meereswissen um eine hochkomplexe Angelegenheit. Auf der Grundlage einer rund drei-monatigen Ethnographie an der ältesten aktiven Meeres-Station der Welt, der Station Marine Concarneau, Bretagne, reflektiert mein Vortrag spezifische Modi heterogener Kollaborationen zwischen Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft. Zunächst stelle ich die Station vor, d.h. ihr spezifisches Forschungsprofil, sowie ihre lokale und länderspezifische Exposition. Nach einer kurzen Einführung in die methodologischen Grundlagen meiner Studie (Pragmatismus, STS, Marine Social Sciences) diskutiere ich drei Typen dort beobachteter heterogener Kollaborationen a) sozio-material, b) sozio-epistemisch und c) sozio-disziplinär. Abschließend diskutiere ich daran anschließende Überlegungen zur systematischen und strategischen Bedeutung von Meeres-Stationen für inter- und transdisziplinäre Kollaborationen vor dem Hintergrund der globalen Transformation von Meer-Gesellschaft-Beziehungen.FIELDS-Projekt: https://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/en/forschung/forschungszentren/css/css-research/research-projects/experiencing-nature-and-society.html
--------
46:25
--------
46:25
Berna Devezer: Claims about scientific rigour require rigour
Protzko et al. describe a project in which internal tests of pilot-tested hypotheses and independent replications embraced “rigour-enhancing practices” such as confirmatory tests, large sample sizes, preregistration and methodological transparency. The authors report a high estimate of replicability, which, in their appraisal, “justifies confidence in rigour-enhancing methods to increase the replicability of new discoveries”. However, replicability was not the original outcome of interest in the project, and analyses associated with replicability were not preregistered as claimed. Instead of replicability, the originally planned study set out to examine whether the mere act of scientifically investigating a phenomenon (data collection or analysis) could cause effect sizes to decline on subsequent investigation (https://osf.io/ba8p7). This “decline effect” hypothesis, posited by one of the authors and not articulated in the published manuscript, invokes phenomena that, if found, could revise the “laws of reality”. The project did not yield support for this preregistered hypothesis; the preregistered analyses on the decline effect and the resulting null findings were largely relegated to the supplement, and the published article instead focused on replicability, with a set of non-preregistered measures and analyses, despite claims to the contrary.
--------
53:31
--------
53:31
Amelia Acker: Platform Power and Data Integration Services in Scientific Infrastructure
This talk examines how commercial cloud services and data integration platforms are shaping scientific knowledge infrastructure and institutional approaches to digital preservation and archival access. Drawing on findings from two collaborative research projects—a decadal analysis of data management plans from NSF funded scientists and the Palantir Files, a public interest archive documenting the firm's data integration services—I explore how platforms are transforming traditional roles of information institutions in providing access to data. The presentation investigates three key developments: the increasing adoption of commercial cloud services (Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud) for storage in scientific data management, the rise of data integration platforms in research environments (GitHub and Figshare), and the implications for institutional autonomy in providing access to archives and publicly funded science. By examining the adoption of platform services in research data management and digital preservation, this work identifies key tensions between open access and commercial platform control. The conclusion will explore counter-archiving projects and institutional strategies that challenge platform dominance while reimagining archival access in a time of networked science.
--------
39:53
--------
39:53
Martin Reinhart & Felicitas Hesselmann: From scandal to reform: approaches to research integrity at a turning point
This talk explores the historical evolution of scandals related to academic integrity and their implications for the relationship between science and politics. We argue that there are three distinctive waves of scandalization since the postwar era: The first wave, starting in the 1970s, led to governance measures addressing public trust issues in science funding. The 1980s and 1990s witnessed a second wave centered on research misconduct, prompting the establishment of boundary organizations such as the Office of Research Integrity. Since the 2010s, the third wave shifted focus to concerns such as Open Science and reproducibility, giving rise to a mainly intra-scientific moral entrepreneurship that unfolds not along one-time scandals anymore, but as part of a continuous crisis discourse. This current wave of reform movements is met with considerably less intra-scientific resistance than its predecessors and hence may inadvertently achieve regulatory goals surpassing previous political intentions.
--------
1:01:59
--------
1:01:59
Björn Hammarfelt & Gustaf Nelhans: Styles of valuation: Disciplinary differences in assessing research
Academic disciplines have distinctive ways of valuing research. These differences exist not only across fields but also between collegial and organisational evaluations. This presentation draws on recent empirical studies of assessment processes in Swedish academia. By analysing guidelines and peer review reports across four domains: humanities, social sciences, medicine, and natural sciences, we identify five key dimensions of publication assessment: (1) Work attribution, (2) Content quality, (3) Publication channel, (4) Impact, and (5) Volume. Our findings reveal contrasting evaluation styles at different organisational levels, which we call ‘disharmonic styles of valuation.’ Rather than focusing on the origins of these quality standards, we emphasise how they interact and coexist within academic assessments.
Ireland