Berna Devezer (University of Idaho, United States)
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.
*recorded and presented 25.06.2025
Amelia Acker (University of Texas at Austin, United States)
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.
*recorded and presented on 28.05.2025
Martin Reinhart & Felicitas Hesselmann (RMZ, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany)
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.
*recorded and presented on 11.06.2025
Björn Hammarfelt & Gustaf Nelhans (University of Borås, Sweden)
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.
*recorded and presented 14.05.2025
Catalina Quiroz-Niño, Margaret Meredith (York St John University, United Kingdom), Ana María Villafuerte (Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco)
International research collaborations can base their research focus, questions and interpretations of the issue on Western assumptions of knowledge. This can delegitimise the potential contributions of some project partners, such as those located in the global South, and silence their interpretations of the issue. International projects can therefore be spaces of what Fricker calls „hermeneutical injustice“. This presentation is based on Quijano´s work on Coloniality to identify enduring patterns of power that inform and shape frames of reference, culture and knowledge production in the colonised regions of the world. The presenters argue that research collaborations should be based upon the recognition, understanding, and exchange of knowledges and interpretations of concepts and realities in multiple directions and dimensions. In this presentation we will describe and explain the approaches we adopted in a collaborative Erasmus project in our aim to promote hermeneutical justice and to recognise all participants in their capacities as knowers and knowledge creators.
*recorded and presented on 30.04.2025
Justo Serrano Zamora (Departamento de Filosofía, Universidad de Málaga)
In my talk, I explore two main responses to democracy’s current existential crisis and their mutual relation. On the one hand, many argue that we should address the phenomenon of post-truth and its negative effects on democratic politics by cultivating citizens’ capacity to build their own, autonomous, judgements. On the other hand, many defend the need of participatory initiatives as a way of bringing citizens to identify with their political institutions. I argue that participatory initiatives are often jeopardized by the epistemological assumptions that draw from the current liberal struggle against post-truth. Instead of promoting liberal epistemological orientations among citizens, we need to draw on socialist or cooperative epistemologies, which make sure that citizens cultivate the necessary (social) conditions to sustain and expand projects of political participation.
*recorded and presented on 13.12.2023
Sarah Schönbauer (STS Department, Technische Universität München)
Der Klimawandel führt zu vielschichtigen und komplexen Veränderungen. Diese Veränderungen bringen unter anderem soziale, epistemische, ökonomische und politische Auswirkungen mit sich. In diesem Vortrag konzentriere ich mich insbesondere auf die Auswirkungen des Klimawandels auf die Wissenschaftswelt und die Positionierungsarbeit von Wissenschaftler*innen. Ich frage: wie nehmen Wissenschaftler*innen Umweltveränderungen wahr und was sind die sozialen und erkenntnistheoretischen Dimensionen dieser Wahrnehmung? In meiner Fallstudie, finanziert durch ein Erwin-Schrödinger Postdoc Stipendium (FWF Austria), beschäftige ich mich mit Meeresforscher*innen und ihren Umgang mit auf den Klimawandel zurückzuführenden Umweltveränderungen in Meeres- und Polarregionen.
Das Meer ist geprägt von rapiden und vielfältigsten Umweltveränderungen. Die Meereswissenschaftler*innen die ich porträtiere, sind meist tief berührt, wenn nicht sogar erschüttert von dem, was sie untersuchen. Diese emotionalen Erfahrungen fließen in ihre Forschungen sowie in die wissenschaftliche Öffentlichkeitsarbeit und in Protestaktionen ein. Meeresforscher*innen untersuchen Umweltveränderungen im Rahmen ihrer Feldforschung, publizieren ihre Ergebnisse in wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen und teilen ihre Forschung als öffentliche Fürsprecher*innen. Darüber hinaus protestieren sie für die Einführung politischer Regulierungsmaßnahmen zur Bewältigung dieser Umweltveränderungen.
Meeresforscher*innen positionieren sich daher sowohl als traditionelle Wissenschaftler*innen als auch als Aktivist*innen. Ich konzeptualisiere die Erfahrungen und Handlungen der Forscher*innen als Umwelt-Engagement (engl. environmental engagement) und stelle entlang dieses Konzepts zwei Formen des Umwelt-Engagements vor, in der Forschung und in Protestaktivitäten. Ich zeige, dass Umwelt-Engagement sowohl kollektivierende Effekte haben und coping Mechanismen bedienen kann, dass es aber ebenso in eine wettbewerbsorientierte wissenschaftliche Arbeitsrealität eingebettet ist. Meine Studie liefert neue Erkenntnisse über die Beziehung zwischen Umweltveränderungen, wissenschaftlicher Arbeit und Protestaktivitäten in Zeiten des Klimawandels. Meine Ergebnisse werde ich als Blaupause für andere Disziplinen weiterdenken. Nicht nur die Meereswissenschaft, sondern auch die Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung muss sich fragen wie eine Positionierung in sich ständig wandelnden Klimawelten gelingen kann und welche Formen des Umwelt- Engagements es dafür braucht.
*recorded and presented on 10.01.2024
Stefan Skupien (Berlin University Alliance, Germany)
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 study
aims 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.
*recorded and presented on 16.04.2025
Malte Jansen/ Aishvarya Aravindan Rajagopal (Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen IQB, Humboldt Universität Berlin)
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.
*recorded and presented on 07.02.2024
Stefanie Haustein
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.
*recorded and presented on 19.03.2025
