RMZ Science Works

Informationen zum Master-Studiengang Wissenschaftsforschung der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin:
https://hu.berlin/ma_wifo

Science and politics are becoming increasingly intertwined. Our project starts from two related expressions of this development: increasing political expectations on science and the proliferation of sites that hybridize science and politics. Against this background, we seek to understand (i) how the potentially conflicting demands that scientists face as they engage with political actors feed back into epistemic practice, (ii) how epistemic practices of scientists interact with other epistemic practices and modes of representation at hybrid sites and (iii) how democratic organizational governance interact with epistemic practices. To explore these questions, we have selected 4-6 hybrid sites, including think tanks, political research institutes, NGOs, and social movements for an empirical multi-method analysis combining participant observation with qualitative interviews and document analysis. The project aims to develop a concept of epistemic-political orientations (EPOs) and generate innovative theoretical analysis of the influence of political actors on epistemic practices. Through empirical work, it explores convergences and divergences of democratic and epistemic practices in hybrid organizations in order to gain leverage on broader theoretical questions on the interaction between democracy and the sciences.

Informationen zum Master-Studiengang Wissenschaftsforschung der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin:
https://hu.berlin/ma_wifo

The use of digital media in science is not only linked to profound reconfigurations of professional research and the publication system. It also involves changes in the relations of science with broader publics. Public engagement is proliferating online and approaches like Citizen Science promise to extend public participation in research. However, such activities remain riddled with problems. Deficit-model assumptions about publics are persisting and also science skepticism is amplified on social media. The talk presents a refined analytical framework of the multiple publics of science for studying such phenomena and their predecessors. Drawing on the sociological notion of 'inclusion in society', it re-examines popular science audiences and amateur researchers as contributing to the production and evaluation of scientific knowledge claims. On this basis, the talk asks how relations between professional scientists and their non-professional counterparts are transformed under current conditions of digital mediatization.

This talk discusses the possibilities of researchers to continue their work in situations where access to previously held resources is constrained. We start from the assumption that academic researchers rely on specific resources to be able to work. While many of these resources are usually provided by research organizations like universities, scientific communities remain the primary reference point for the work of researchers. The result is that some resources need to be acquired from elsewhere and that research can in some cases be continued without organizational support. The resulting situation is undertheorized by both organization and work studies (because they treat the full provision of resources for employees as a given and the content of work as unproblematic) and science studies (because of their focus on funding as the primary type of resource). We propose to fill this gap by treating the provision of resources as a variable on the one hand and by establishing a link between conditions of research, planned and conducted research processes, and necessary adaptions of researchers to changes in their conditions on the other hand.
We present results from interviews in projects investigating two situations where previously secured access to resources becomes constrained: the unemployment of researchers and the COVID-19 pandemic. The two situations can be compared through conceptualizing their effect on researchers as a change of access in resources. We focus on a comparison of two fields, plant biology and ethnology, to show how different career stages, the timing of research processes, and field-specificity impact the possibilities of researchers to continue working during these situations.

The study examines whether and to what extent academic culture is gendered. The gendered implications of academic culture are analysed through academics' perceptions of workplace culture, their experiences of discrimination and abuse of power, and their reported stress levels. Gender biases are evident across all dimensions examined, leading us to argue that academia operates as a gendered system in which unfavourable working cultures emerge that disproportionately—and more negatively ("chilly")—affect women compared to men. We further demonstrate that gender bias is particularly pronounced at the professorial level, exceeding that observed at earlier career stages. With regard to career conditions, we show that stress levels are especially high among postdoctoral researchers who aspire to a professorship—and higher still among women compared to their male counterparts. We interpret these findings to suggest that the gendered implications of academic culture are closely linked to the ways in which competition in academia is structured, institutionalised, and subjectively experienced.

Scientific associations are often seen as neutral professional bodies, yet they are crucial institutional spaces where norms, credibility, and the boundaries of "expertise" are created and upheld. This talk explores how such organizations navigate between internal academic standards and external pressures and expectations—particularly in non- liberal contexts. Building on a revised interpretation of Burawoy's framework, we suggest a model that identifies four orientations within scientific societies: professional/disciplinary autonomy, reflexive critique, policy engagement, and public engagement. We examine how these orientations become connected or separated under structural and institutional constraints. The talk argues that common dichotomies— instrumental versus reflexive, and academic versus extra-academic—may function differently when professional activity is influenced by political risk, organizational dependence, and unequal access to resources. Although the presentation is based on an ongoing empirical study currently under peer review, it emphasizes the conceptual contribution: theorizing "professionalism under constraint" and demonstrating why scientific associations are significant for comparative STS and the sociology of professions.