The Importance of Science Communication Research and of Science Studies for the Region – Opening of the RRC in Dortmund
How can science communication be practiced under post-truth conditions? And what role do the humanities and social sciences play in this context? The Rhine Ruhr Center for Science Communication Research (RRC) is devoted to answering these and other pressing questions. The center is funded by a generous grant from the Volkswagen Foundation and headed by Julika Griem of the Kulturwissenschaftliches Institut Essen (KWI), David Kaldewey of the Forum Internationale Wissenschaft (FIW) at the University of Bonn, Holger Wormer of the TU Dortmund, Oliver Ruf of the University of Applied Sciences Bonn-Rhine-Sieg as well as Volker Stollorz of the Science Media Center in Cologne and Franco Zotta of the German Science Journalists’ Association.
The RRC is devoted to science communication with a special focus on the humanities and social sciences. As such, it addresses highly important questions about how insights from the reflexive social and cultural research on science might be communicated. Natural scientists usually attract attention via stimulating images of ground-breaking discoveries. Not so the reflexive sciences on science. Thus, there are elementary questions that need to be answered about the communicability of insights from social and cultural research on science. Next to this, RRC aims to, over the course of its initial five-year funding, bring its findings closer to practicing journalists as well as to students in interdisciplinary workshops and conferences. On June 2, 2022, the RRC officially opened with a celebratory inauguration at the Erich-Brost-Institute at TU Dortmund. Together with our director Stefan Böschen I ventured to Dortmund to attend the event, at which we met with many familiar faces from science studies and journalism.
Phillip H. Roth
Phillip is postdoc and the events coordinator at c:o/re. Among other topics, his research is dedicated to questions of identity work in biomedical disciplines, to the meaning of medicine and the role of patient advocacy on the internet as well as to social and cultural conditions of scientific modeling. In a current project, he is trying to develop a sociology of pandemics for the digital age that draws on communication theories of virality and contagion.
After welcoming words by Holger Wormer, the inauguration consisted of a brief overview of the RRC’s three main research projects, given by Julika Griem, as well as three panel discussions, each moderated by one of the RRC’s heads. The panels were devoted to core problem areas of the RRC, making up most the of the formal part of the evening. In the first, moderated by Oliver Ruf, Julia Schubert (University of Speyer) discussed with local students about “Science Communication in Times of Multiple Facts”. One of the core take-aways of this insightful discussion was that the students desired the humanities and social sciences to be more present in public science communication. They stressed particularly that they promised themselves that these fields would be better equipped than natural or engineering sciences to deal with the problems of post-truth in current debates. The second panel, moderated by David Kaldewey, consisted of a dialogue between science journalist Birgit Herden (Die Welt) and the sociologist of science and technology Cornelius Schubert (TU Dortmund) about “Images and Imaginations of Science”. They reflected on how journalism and sociology address different audiences. Variety of audiences necessarily also leads to conflicts between the trajectories of the two professions. While journalism needs to “close” scientific debates to make the topic appealing to its readership, [1]Peter Conrad (1999). Use of Expertise: Sources, Quotes, and Voice in the Reporting of Genetic News. Public Understanding of Science 8 (4): 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/8/4/302 a key ambition of science studies, sociology of science or STS is to “open up” the infamous black box of science.[2]Trevor J. Pinch and Wiebe E. Bijker (1984). The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might benefit each other. In Social Studies … Continue reading This is aligned with our effort to “unbox science” here at c:o/re. This ultimately also thwarts any settlement on “the facts”, making science a volatile and (politically) malleable business in sociologists’ eyes, something that is particularly critical under post-truth conditions. However, Schubert also recalls the common heritage of journalism and sociology in the reportages that founded the early-twentieth century Chicago School,[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_(sociology) offering hope that each in their own way can contribute to successfully communicating the complexities of scientific research and its findings to the public. In a third session, panellists Eva Weber-Guskar (University of Bochum) and Samir Sellami asked about “A Quality Circle for the Humanities and Social Sciences?” Both are initiators of online platforms – PhilPublica and Soziopolis, respectively – that are devoted to bringing scholarly content to a wide readership. Together with the journalist Volker Stollorz, who moderated the panel, they reminisced whether and how these open formats might provide criteria for the successful communication of scientific content in the digital world. During the informal part of the event – drinks and snacks in the courtyard of the Erich-Brost-Institue while the sun was shining, and the temperatures were warm – we were able to catch up with friends and colleagues after an almost two-year hiatus from in-person events.
A crucial feature of the RRC is that it considers science communication not only from a communication research perspective, but also from a cultural studies (KWI Essen) as well science studies & STS perspective (FIW Bonn). For this reason, we at c:o/re look forward to partnering with the RRC on questions at the intersection of science studies and science communication research. We hope that this partnership will help to unravel what science communication entails in the current mediascape and, also, what we can learn from it practically for communication at c:o/re and elsewhere. Given the grand challenges we face today,[4]David Kaldewey (2018). The Grand Challenges Discourse: Transforming Identiy Wlrk in Science and Science Policy. In Minerva 56: 161-182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9332-2. such as climate change, the digitalization of research practices, energy and mobility transformations, resource scarcity, war and poverty, we also wish that it will strengthen the role of science studies scholarship in the Aachen-Rhine-Ruhr region and in Germany more generally, providing a clearer picture of the role that science can play in facing these challenges.
A first joint conference between the RRC and c:o/re is already in the making and is set to take place in 2023. We will keep you posted as things develop and also about further collaborations between the partners at the RRC and c:o/re. Please also see our events section for infos on further upcoming workshops, lectures and conferences. For now, all that remains is for us to wish our friends at the RRC all the best for their projects. We look forward to the friendly and frequent exchanges about science studies and communication research – cheers!
Proposed citation: Phillip Roth. 2022. The Importance of Science Communication Research and of Science Studies for the Region – Opening of the RRC in Dortmund. https://khk.rwth-aachen.de/2022/06/17/3613/3613/.
References
| ↑1 | Peter Conrad (1999). Use of Expertise: Sources, Quotes, and Voice in the Reporting of Genetic News. Public Understanding of Science 8 (4): 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/8/4/302 |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | Trevor J. Pinch and Wiebe E. Bijker (1984). The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might benefit each other. In Social Studies of Science 14 (3): 399-441. You can read the paper here. |
| ↑3 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_(sociology) |
| ↑4 | David Kaldewey (2018). The Grand Challenges Discourse: Transforming Identiy Wlrk in Science and Science Policy. In Minerva 56: 161-182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9332-2. |
Quo vadis, Cultures of Research?
ALIN OLTEANU
The Käte Hamburger Kolleg: Cultures of Research (c:o/re) celebrated itself, as it completed the first 4-year cycle of funding and is now successfully entering a second funding cycle. The center is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within its framework program for the humanities and social sciences “Shaping the Future”. On March 25-27, 2025, we were delighted to get together for a conference targeted on the specific but encompassing theme of this center, namely Cultures of Research, which, we dare say, has recently become a more prominent academic topic due to the center’s efforts.
Who are we? All of us – c:o/re team members and fellows, both current and alumni, with a scientific advisory board that has steered the center’s activities. Almost all c:o/re fellows, who have carried out research here over four years, were present. This enabled a fascinating, for us, intersectional and inter-paradigmatic academic dialogue, the kind that makes the object of Cultures of Research. Chaired by the c:o/re team, fellows and scientific advisory board members have presented their research in approximately 40 talks. It was a most enjoyable opportunity for us to discuss what emerged from four years of research and how we see it evolving in the future.
Alin Olteanu
Alin Olteanu is an Associate Professor of Semiotics at Shanghai International Studies University. Until July 2024, he worked as a a postdoctoral researcher and publications coordinator at the KHK c:o/re.
Many of us, team members and alumni fellows, deem the conference not just useful, but necessary. c:o/re has become an important dimension in the work of several of us, intellectually and institutionally. As such, gathering altogether is as important as the regular meeting of many themed academic associations. c:o/re has opened new career opportunities and perspectives for several of us. The center was formative and instrumental in the career development of many, not just fostering the next step on a linear trajectory, such as from postdoc to tenure, but also enabling shifts in research focus, such as from engineering to science and technology studies. A small minority of alumni fellows has even found long-term academic placement at RWTH Aachen University. Even for such colleagues, who never fully left the center, the conference was needed, to reconnect with others. Many remark that it was particularly interesting to have the chance to dialog with the scientific advisory board in a collective, transparent and friendly setting.
c:o/re directors Professors Gabriele Gramelsberger and Stefan Böschen started off the conference, welcoming what was a heterogenous but familiar gathering. They shared their views on the first four years of this center, the main research topics that channel its work and how these evolved. This ushered in the first keynote, “Historicizing Epistemology” by Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, a fitting way to start off a Cultures of Research conference, setting the optics for further conversation.
The conference was structured thematically in eight panels under three main c:o/re study foci, as follows. To address the theme of Change of research practices, we organized the panels Dealing with Complexity and Digitalization of Science. The theme Organizational transformations in science was addressed through panels on Lifelikeness, “Expanded STS” & Euregio, Freedom of Research, Art and Research. The Historical and intercultural comparison of varieties of science was organized into the panels Historicizing Science and Varieties of Science. This thematic organization results from a dialectics that is both top-down and bottom-up, to follow the research center’s rationale and mission, which have been channeled, in time, through the research it produced, one step at a time.
Being part of the c:o/re team, we feel privileged to be in a position to listen to the various studies that have emerged from this research center, observing how they have shaped the center and how its entailed research topics have changed over time. To illustrate, for someone who has been a part of this four-year effort throughout, it was fascinating to listen to dialogues among the scientific advisory board with and across four generations of fellows, who seldomly knew each other. This was not just a meeting of individual scholars, but of academic groups that have crystallized during their respective fellowships, having each developed their research subculture. In this exercise, we saw first-hand the importance of institutional academic funding structured in this Käte Hamburger Kolleg format. Until now, we have worked with these scholars individually and in well-focused formats, such as thematically organized fellow cohorts.
Our festive conference opened the doors to intersectional dialogue, releasing the, however interdisciplinary, strictly focused work of individuals and clusters within c:o/re into a productive and creative chaos. As some fellows attest, while at first glimpse the range of topics brought together under the roof of the center, as seen in this conference, may seem unrelated, they epistemologically connect very well. It is such facilitating of interdisciplinary research that positioned some fellows to discover that the issues they tackle are of interest beyond the disciplinary confines within which they each operate.
We see c:o/re having enabled new and unexpected quo vadis reflections on Cultures of Research, something we can observe regarding the topic of “Expanded STS”, a c:o/re coinage that is drawing growing attention, as an anticipating consideration on scientific and technological futures. Actually, we contend that the conference panel dedicated to Expanded STS demonstrated how much STS is shaped by ‘othering’ and internal demarcation between disciplines (especially the sociology and philosophy of science). However, at the same time, our conversations reveal not only that a multitude of approaches co-exist, dealing with these boundaries differently and more productively, but also that a growing scholarly community is willing to explore new interdisciplinary avenues for cooperation.
We do not want to give the wrong impression that the research carried out at c:o/re is free of contradicting or even controversies – far from it. The conference has seen plenty of contradictory arguments and contestations among the speakers, in a way that accounts for two important matters for any research institute, namely that (1) this center is a platform for free academic debate and that (2) the approaches it hosts are epistemically compatible (that two positions on a topic are contradictory implies that they are relevant on to the other). Actually, the one claim on which we found total agreement is that Freedom of Research is currently one of the most important issues for the academe, as well as society broadly. All fellows, team and scientific advisory board members see the urgent need of freely (!) discussing the freedom of scholars in the current context when sociotechnical shifts have consequences for the freedom of speech and expression.
Of course, discussion on what freedom in research is, how it is practiced and how it should be supported institutionally was fiery, encompassing a broad variety of perspectives. Overall, there is agreement that this is how an exercise in academic freedom looks like: we are free and enabled institutionally to contradict each other. We note that the Cultures of Research conference took place shortly after a new US administration started exercising pressure on scientists and universities shortly after it came to power. Political pressure on academia will undoubtedly constitute a main concern for c:o/re in its second cycle of funding, shaping its future development, as we hope and anticipate that it will shape the future development of philosophical and social inquiry on technology in general.
Unless otherwise noted, photos by Christian van’t Hoen.
The program with all speakers and titles of the conference can be found in this document.
“We can look forward to four more exciting years” – Interview with Gabriele Gramelsberger and Stefan Böschen
The Käte Hamburger Kolleg: Cultures of Research (c:o/re) at RWTH Aachen University will begin its second funding phase in May 2025. The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) will fund the center for another four years. With the start of the second phase, KHK c:o/re directors Gabriele Gramelsberger and Stefan Böschen look back, reflect on the achievements and developments of the past four years, and set out the goals and expectations for the coming years.
Looking back over the past four years: What were the highlights of the first funding phase?
It is already a highlight that c:o/re is the first Käte Hamburger Kolleg at a technical university and will probably remain the only one. It is also the only center for advanced studies in history, philosophy, and sociology of science and technology worldwide. The first funding phase was a development phase. This development has been successfully completed. We got a wonderful location for this Kolleg on Theaterstraße and the best possible team. We have had great fellows in all four cohorts, with whom we have developed exciting intellectual perspectives in very different ways. In addition, we have been able to organize a large number of events, networks, and collaborations both within and outside RWTH. Therefore, there are plenty of highlights to report on from the first funding phase.
What are the lessons learned, especially with regard to the interdisciplinary exchange with the fellows?
Experience shows how demanding this collaboration ultimately is, but also how fruitful. You wouldn’t necessarily expect different branches of the humanities and social sciences to work together with natural sciences and technology, but they do. We also work intensively with our colleagues from the natural sciences and engineering. That’s why we’ve developed various formats like lab talks to make these collaborations easier. We’ve also developed projects with some fellows that are now being carried out in cooperation with the Human Technology Center (HumTec). The most important lesson learned, however, is certainly that this type of collaboration not only requires more time and a more relaxed attitude, but also that specific opportunities should be created so that the work can lead to joint results. Goal-orientation fuels interdisciplinary cooperation. In the “Software Group” (a working group at the KHK c:o/re – editor’s note), for example, an article was written with many fellows from a wide area of disciplines and published in Nature Computational Science.
What do you enjoy most about working at the KHK c:o/re?
It’s just wonderful that the KHK gives us a platform that allows us such unusual freedom in our research. This has to do with a number of important boundary conditions. On the one hand, generous funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) allows us to invite a large number of fellows from all over the world every year to work with us on fundamental questions in science. Second, we have a great team that not only supports the work but also enables us to work together on our research goals. Finally, we receive exceptional support from the Rectorate of RWTH Aachen University, which regards the work of the Kolleg as an important asset for its strategy for excellence.
What are the goals of the second funding phase?
In the second funding phase, we are taking seriously the feedback from last year’s evaluation of our research group. The evaluation went very well fostering our research profile more strongly. This will enable us to produce results of even greater relevance and visibility. Against this background, we are pursuing two lines of research, one dealing with the digitization of research (“Varieties of the Digital”) and the other with the cosmopolitization of science (“Varieties of Science”). These lines of inquiry are not only significant in their own right, but also allow us to advance the program of an integrated interdisciplinary methodology of science studies itself, which we bundle under the heading “Expanded STS”. Furthermore, we will link “Expanded STS” to the historical reflection of computing, philosophy of science, and STS. We are working on two book series. One will consist of three volumes dealing with the history, philosophy, and sociology of computing and computational science. The other will consist of two volumes on Expanded STS.
What are you looking forward to?
We can look forward to four more exciting years. We will certainly cultivate even more freedom for individual and joint research than we have done so far. In addition, the Kolleg allows us to further develop and strengthen our international networks related to our research topics. In this way, we hope not only to achieve insightful research results, but also to support the development of a special epistemic culture at our University. This is based on the ideal of tailor-made, integrated, interdisciplinary research practices for understanding science itself, but also for finding more targeted solutions to collective problems.
What challenges do you see in the current research landscape and how does the KHK c:o/re address them?
There are a number of significant changes in the research landscape. These can be described using the triad of transformation, transformation of science, and transformative research. These changes challenge our self-image as researchers, but also the institutionalized self-understanding of science. Although science represents an institutionalized special space for the production of epistemically sound knowledge, it is also increasingly caught up in the maelstrom of contemporary transformations. Making these transformations analyzable in terms of their structure and dynamics is the central concern of our research at the Kolleg.
What is your current research focus and how does it relate to your work at the KHK?
Gabriele Gramelsberger: My research focuses on a long-term narrative of the digitization of science as part of the philosophy of computer science. The history of computer science and computational science on the one hand and current developments towards AI on the other are linked to better understand today’s “digitality”. In my view, digitality began long before the invention of the digital computer in the 1940s. Digitality is the result of the operationalization of the mind of modern philosophy in the 18th century. In the 19th century, mathematics took over, and in the 20th century, engineering took over. However, with this broader perspective, we can better integrate the humanities and social sciences into the current understanding of the digital, which is dominated by science and technology. Above all, we need to better understand the cultural impact of software, which has become the general infrastructure of research and everyday life. Its cultural impact is based on the fact that programming has introduced a new and very powerful way of using written language that not only describes operations but also executes them. Nevertheless, it is a product of written language that is worthy of being archived as cultural heritage and researched by historians, philosophers and sociologists of science and technology.
Stefan Böschen: My research focuses on a wide range of issues in the sociology of science and expanded STS (science and technology studies). Of particular importance are the different forms of collaborative research in a variety of settings. These typically relate to a wide range of fields of innovation and transformation (from neuromorphic computing to a DC-driven energy transition). In this context, concepts of research infrastructures (such as living labs) or those of the analysis of innovation and transformation processes (such as innovation ecosystems) can be further developed. This also creates highly productive new interfaces with research at the Kolleg. For example, the form and dynamics of living labs can be examined in their region-specific differences and thus investigated with regard to the differences brought about by varieties of science (cultural-institutional varieties of scientificity).
What is your “culture of research”? How would you describe the way you conduct research?
Gabriele Gramelsberger: My research culture combines epistemic and historical research in order to better understand current developments. The historical dimension encompasses a wide range of interdisciplinary practices and aspects that I am interested in. Therefore, the Kolleg is the perfect place for me to live my research culture.
Stefan Böschen: My research culture can be characterized by the combination of engineering (I am a trained chemical engineer) and sociology. This has not only given me a keen interest in technology assessment and science and technology studies, but also a great enjoyment of interdisciplinary collaboration at the interfaces between very different disciplines. The productive connection between the various disciplines of science studies plays a particularly inspiring role for me.
The interview was conducted by Jana Hambitzer.
Theodore von Kármán Fellowship to Professor Victor de Lorenzo
Victor de Lorenzo, chemist and Professor of Research in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), where he currently heads the Laboratory of Environmental Synthetic Biology at the National Center for Biotechnology, has been awarded the Theodore von Kármán Fellowship by RWTH Aachen University.
Professor Lars Blank (Chair of Applied Microbiology) and KHK c:o/re director Professor Gabriele Gramelsberger jointly applied for the fellowship. The fellowship thus strengthens interdisciplinary cooperation in the field of biotechnology.
The fellowship enables Victor de Lorenzo to spend two weeks at the Käte Hamburger Kolleg: Cultures of Research (c:o/re) at RWTH Aachen University, where he will work on the project “Synthetic Biology: From Domination of the Natural World to Partnership and Negotiation”. This project proposes to explore synthetic biology not only as a tool for control, but also as a means to reimagine our interactions with the microbial world. Drawing parallels with the changing perception of animals in Western societies – from resources to sentient beings – it argues for developing a new epistemology for microbes, recognizing their agency and evolutionary narratives. By integrating science, philosophy, and art, this project seeks to anticipate and shape a new ethic of coexistence, negotiation, and compromise with the microbial world.
To present the outcomes of this fellowship, Victor de Lorenzo will give a public university lecture entitled “Design Meets Evolution: Theory and Practice” on May 13, 2025, from 5 to 6.30 pm, at the KHK c:o/re, Theaterstr. 75. For further information and registration, please have a look at the event here.
RWTH Kármán-Fellowships are funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the Ministry of Culture and Science of the German State of North Rhine Westphalia (MKW) under the Excellence Strategy of the Federal Government and the Länder.
Emotional AI in the Japanese and German Workplace: Exploring Cultural Diversity in AI Ethics as Variety of Science
STEFAN BÖSCHEN, MASAHIKO HARA, PETER MANTELLO AND ALIN OLTEANU
The Käte Hamburger Kolleg: Cultures of Research (c:o/re) is a partner on the project Emotional AI in the Japanese and German Workplace: Exploring Cultural Diversity in AI Ethics, led by Professor Peter Mantello of Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (APU) and funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. The project has been ongoing for about a year, and in January 2025, c:o/re director Stefan Böschen and Alin Olteanu visited Professor Mantello and conducted a first field study in Japan for this project.
As the title claims, this project examines the developments in Emotional AI from a comparative perspective between Japan and Germany. Such research is, of course, conducted in the context of increasingly rapid developments in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). So far, these developments have occurred in waves. Phases of great innovative momentum alternated with phases in which this topic appeared dormant. The recent technological platform of large language models such as ChatGPT suggests that this field is now entering a phase of lasting and disruptive development. The great geopolitical competition between world regions is exemplified in the sudden appearance of China’s DeepSeek. These developments raise questions about the specific technological development under the respective cultural-institutional framework conditions. With its AI Act, the European Union has issued the strictest, risk-based regulation of AI, striking a balance between protection against technology and industrial development, while the United States and Japan appear, at least at the present moment, reluctant to lay down a concrete regulatory policy, preferring instead a market state approach.
Our project offers the opportunity to reflect not only on the specific challenges for science studies, but importantly, in the context of the increasingly quantified workplace, where insights can be fed into the varieties of science discussions pioneered at c:o/re. The following itinerary documents the journey of c:o/re director Stefan Böschen and former team member Alin Olteanu through Japan, together with Principal Investigator Peter Mantello, along with Co-Investigator Hiroshi Miyashita of Chuo University, and the local assistance of Masahiko Hara, an alumni fellow of c:o/re who graciously gave us his time to accompany us from Tokyo to Beppu. The following blog post outlines some of the places and people we met along the way, as well as revealing insights we achieved on this whirlwind one week journey.
Tokyo, Monday, January 13th – AI Workshop
On the 13th of January, a workshop on the Future of AI was held at Ritsumeikan University’s Tokyo Campus at Sapia Tower. Bringing together stakeholders from the private sector, academia, and non-governmental organizations, the workshop explored various risks and opportunities of AI development in Japan. Some of the speakers included researcher Nicole Müller from the German Institute for Japanese Studies (DIJ), who spoke about the implications of Emotional AI and Extended Reality, Imam Habib, managing director of Menlo Park, a venture capital firm, who described the regulatory challenges facing AI start-ups in the field of healthcare, Professor Hiroshi Miyashita, speaking as a data privacy expert who examined emerging legal issues surrounding the nascent but rapidly growing field of neurotechnology and Dennis Tesolat, a spokesman for General Union, Japan’s largest labor advocacy group, who spoke about the increasing employer-employee conflicts due to the adoption of AI management systems by a growing number of Japanese companies.
Tokyo, Tuesday, January 14th – German Institute for Japanese Studies and TeamLabs
In the morning of the 14th of January, we visited the German Institute for Japanese Studies (DIJ) and held discussions with the Deputy Director of Sociology, Barbara Holhus, exploring the possibility of various short and longer-term collaboration avenues between DIJ, c:o/re and other Japanese universities. Having identified various research avenues of common interest, we agreed to meet regularly in the future. The trio of DIJ-c:o/re-APU brings a set of complementary competences to collaborate on the comparative study of research cultures and their technological evolution.
Later that day, before catching Japan’s famous Shinkansen highspeed train to our next destination, Kyoto, we took the opportunity of a mid-day hiatus to visit TeamLab Planets, an interactive museum providing customized AI-powered art experiences. Utilizing state-of-the-art technology, TeamLab Planets offers visitors seven different types of multi-sensory, fully immersive artistic environments. Not only did we all find this immersive experience very relaxing, we also noted how inspiring and motivating it can be, especially for the science and technology scholars.
Kyoto, Wednesday, January 15th – Kyoto University’s Disaster Prevention Research Institute and School of Informatics
On the 15th of January, we ventured to Kyoto University to meet researchers at the Disaster Prevention Research Institute (DPRI). Here we learned from various faculty members of the institute about the latest of current research developments in natural hazard reduction and integrated strategies utilizing the latest modeling software for disaster loss reduction. We were certainly surprised at the institute’s multidisciplinary embrace of artistic interventions in this regard, as a presentation by Naoko Tosa, a resident artist at DPRI, described her fascinating and thought-provoking designs in clothing fabric which weave digital sensors and actuators that are activated by cellular emergency warnings. Afterwards, we were invited to visit her studio, where we had a chance to get a closer look at the technical and conceptual aspects of her creative process in designing ‘disaster couture’.
The day concluded with a visit to the Department of Informatics at Kyoto University, where we met Professor Jaward Haqbeen, an Afghan AI researcher whose work focuses on the use of generative AI in language acquisition in developing countries such as Afghanistan and Nepal. We have discussed plans for future collaboration, particularly on matters of education, language learning and technological literacies.
Osaka, Thursday, January 16th – NTT’s Brain Lab Osaka University
On Thursday, we headed to Osaka to visit one of Japan’s leading research centers for brain science, NTT’s Human Information Science Laboratory (HISF) at Osaka University. Employing a multidisciplinary approach to neuroscience, HISF brings together some of the nation’s top scientists from the fields of information science, psychology, and neuroscience. Utilizing cutting-edge technologies, HISF researchers study the mechanisms underlying human perception, cognition, emotion, and movement with a current focus on understanding how environmental and social information is processed in the human body and brain. These findings are expected to serve as basis for future information technologies that are conceptually new and user-friendly. During their presentation, we learned about technology development in a surprising way, especially about the “Yuragi-Group”. This group originally develops AI according to the unique cultural principle of Yuragi, which not only enables new technical options, but also allows specific value judgments to be realized (the topic of transparency of AI). They have arrived at a unique form of AI programming that differs from deep learning programs in relevant parameters. In this way, an element of transparency has been built into the AI, as the map of affordances (this is, so to speak, the cognitive system of the AI; our formulation) can be transferred to the next system in each case. It relies on a cultural repertoire and the formation of epistemic heuristics.
Beppu, Friday, January 17th – Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
On Friday the 17th, the team along with Professor Masahiko Hara (Institute of Science, Tokyo) gave talks at Professor Mantello’s home institution, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University in Beppu, located on the east coast of Kyushu Island in the south of Japan. Targeting a primarily undergraduate audience, Stefan Böschen gave an informative lecture on the importance of science and technology studies. Alin Olteanu engaged students with a talk on the semiotics of Digital Nomadism and Masahiko Hara on his experimental artistic interventions into intelligent interfaces that read human emotions.
Outlook
Like most countries, Japan and Germany share fundamental values such as freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. They also agree that accountability, transparency, human rights and privacy should be built into AI. Yet where the EU/Germany wants a top-down government-led approach to mitigate AI harms, Japan (at least at the moment) prefers an industry/sector approach to give the technology a good chance to grow. At the government level, the annual Japan/Germany ICT Policy dialog forum promotes the need for common rules on AI. Importantly, Japanese labor law is influenced by the German legal contexts. But while German law on AI in the workplace is becoming increasingly precise and restrictive, current Japanese law is vague and ambiguous. Thus, it is important to refer to the development of both EU and German law for comparisons of Emotional AI in the workplace. As Co-Investigator Hiroshi Miyashita argues, “Japan is well-known for importing foreign laws, but a patchwork of copy/paste does not work well in a Japan”.
Concomitantly, our collaborative efforts to date suggest that Japan could offer a third way by heuristically exploring the space of AI development that seeks to create harmonious human-machine relationships, with a focus on AI that preserves human dignity. Keeping this in mind, the journey goes on, and we look forward to further opportunities to collaborate with the project of Professor Mantello, as well as with the DIJ and other stakeholders from both the private and public sector. It is interesting to note that the Japanese government is fueling the evolutionary dynamic in the field by creating far-reaching exchange opportunities for incoming researchers.
Photo Credits: Peter Mantello
Get to know our Fellows: Harro van Lente
Get to know our current fellows and gain an impression of their research. In a new series of short videos, we asked them to introduce themselves, talk about their work at c:o/re and the research questions that fascinate them.
In this video, Harro van Lente, professor of science and technology studies (STS) at Maastricht University, presents his research on the role of promises and expectations in science and technology. He explores the notion of epistemic imaginaries, desirable outcomes within a field of research, how they influence scientists and institutions in deciding their disciplinary direction, and how they are changing in the face of current challenges such as climate change and globalization.
Check out our media section or our YouTube channel to have a look at the other videos.
Lecture Series Summer 2025: Expanding Science and Technology Studies
We are happy to announce that the lecture series of the summer term 2025 will continue to explore the topic of expanding science and technology studies.
Over the decades, science and technology studies (STS) have developed many different approaches for investigating the relationship between science and society and to dig deep into the cultures of research, the ways science is conducted. For example, scholars have investigated the local cultures and politics underlying processes of knowledge production, the biases and gender divisions informing the organization of academic institutions, or the reception of future technological visions in different publics. There is a rich knowledge. However, it seems that science studies are not well prepared for the transformation challenge, a present-day topic that also affects science, knowledge societies, and the spread of knowledge. Against this background, the purpose of this lecture series is to understand first the transformation challenge and its consequences for science studies and second to explore different pathways of future science studies.
The lecture series will begin on May 7, 2025 with a talk by Nina Frahm entitled “Innovation as Res Publica: The New Governance of Technoscience and its Politics”.
For an overview of the dates and speakers, please see the program.
The lecture series will take place every second Wednesday from 5 to 6.30 pm, in the lecture hall of the center and online via zoom.
If you would like to attend the lectures, please send a short email to events@khk.rwth-aachen.de.
Program
| May 7, 2025 | Nina Frahm (Aarhus University): Innovation as Res Publica: The New Governance of Technoscience and its Politics |
| May 21, 2025 | Hannah Star Rogers (KHK c:o/re fellow): Expanding STS: Art, Science, and Technology Studies (ASTS) |
| June 18, 2025 | Bart Penders (Maastricht University): Metascience as the Social Hygiene Movement of Science Studies |
| July 2, 2025 | Daniela Wentz (KHK c:o/re fellow): Data Behaviorism: A History |
| July 16, 2025 | Carsten Reinhardt (Bielefeld University): How Uncertainty is Rendered Residual |
Call for Papers: History and Philosophy of Computing (HaPoC) Conference
Submissions are open for the 8th edition of the History and Philosophy of Computing (HaPoC) Conference that will take place on December 17-19, 2025, at RWTH Aachen University (Germany) on behalf of the DHST/DLMPST Commission for the History and Philosophy of Computing (HaPoC).
Important dates:
- Submission deadline: May 25, 2025
- Notification of acceptance/rejection: July 31, 2025
- Conference: December 17-19, 2025
About the conference:
Since 2011, the biennial History and Philosophy of Computing (HaPoC) conference series has contributed to building an interdisciplinary community and environment to address the various facets of computing and computing technology. HaPoC aims to bring together scholars from a broad range of disciplines to discuss the past and present cultures, practices and images of computing.
We welcome contributions from researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds, such as history, philosophy, sociology, computer science and software engineering, cultural and media studies, computational sciences, design and art. We invite contributors to share their expertise in respective areas and openly engage in interdisciplinary discussions. Topics include, but are not limited to:
- Historical and philosophical dimensions of computing practices
- Social and cultural aspects of computing
- Computing and the arts
- New forms of computing, such as neuromorphic computing
- Ethical and legal aspects of computing
- Reflecting and historicizing AI
We look forward to submissions by scholars from all career stages and aim at diversity of participants in terms of demographics that include gender, career stage/track, geographical location, and institutional affiliation.
Find out more on the HaPoC website (with links to past conferences).
Submission procedure:
Please submit to hapoc2025@khk.rwth-aachen.de a 2-page proposal in PDF format containing:
- an anonymized abstract (1 page, ca. 700 words) for double-blind review
- a max. 1-page statement of your name, affiliation, research focus, academic activities and optionally publications (max. 5).
Acceptance notifications will be sent by July 31, 2025.
There are no conference fees and travel grants will be offered to early career scholars, further information will follow.
We look forward to meeting you at HaPoC-8 in Aachen!
Confirmed Keynote Speakers:
Robin K. Hill, University of Wyoming, US
Alexandre Hocquet, Université de Lorraine, France
Confirmed Members of the Program Committee:
Arianna Borrelli, TU Berlin and RWTH Aachen, Germany
Jianqing Chen, Washington University at Saint Louis, US
Jack Copeland, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ
Beatrice Fazi, University of Sussex, UK
Gabriele Gramelsberger, RWTH Aachen, Germany
Thomas Haigh, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, US
Andrei Korbut, CAIS Center for Advanced Internet Studies Bochum, Germany
Ben Peters, University of Tulsa, US
Mate Szabo, University of Southern California, US
Local Organising Committee at RWTH Aachen University:
Gabriele Gramelsberger (philosophy of science)
Stefan Böschen (sociology of science)
Dawid Kasprowicz (philosophy of science)
Phillip Roth (science and technology studies)
Saskia Nagel (ethics of science)
Torsten Voigt (science and technology studies)
Find the Call as a pdf document here.
Event Announcement: Workshop “After Networks: Reframing Scale, Reimagining Connections”
We cordially invite you to the interdisciplinary workshop “After Networks: Reframing Scale, Reimagining Connections”, which will take place on April 16 and 17, 2025 at the SuperC of RWTH Aachen University. The event is organized in collaboration with Nathalia Lavigne, who is currently a fellow at the KHK c:o/re.
Abstract
In the last few years, we have witnessed an unprecedented crisis in the way social interactions have merged with the informational space. The current “space of the world”, as the artificial space of social media platforms has been called (Couldry, 2025), is designed and controlled by corporations with strictly business purposes, putting at risk a sense of community in a devastating way. How can the future of the internet be imagined beyond social media platforms? What can we learn from other networks or other notions of space devised by artists? In which ways can digital communication be grounded on equity, common ownership and sustainability? These are some of the questions that will be addressed during the workshop.
The interdisciplinary program, combining art and internet studies, puts together different approaches on how science and technology are configured in other spheres beyond academia. Gathering scholars, artists and activists who have been working on disruptive understanding of digital systems, this two-day event will discuss alternative ways to reimagine connections in contrast to increasingly monopolistic and financially motivated social media platforms.
The workshop includes an opening artist talk with Eduardo Kac, a keynote speech with the media scholar Lori Emerson, who is launching her new book “Other Networks: A Radical Technology Sourcebook” (Anthology Editions, 2025) and a round table focused on a community-centered perspective of networks.
The full program can be found in this document.
If you would like to attend, please register with: events@khk.rwth-aachen.de
Speakers
Tatiana Bazzichelli is the founder and director of the Disruption Network Lab, a non-profit organisation in Berlin that explores the intersection of politics, technology and society (www.disruptionlab.org). Her work focuses on whistleblowing, network culture, art and activism. Since September 2023 she is the director of the Disruption Network Institute: Investigating the Kill Cloud, a new centre for investigation and empirical research into the impact of artificial intelligence on new technologies of war, automated weapons and networked warfare (https://disruption.institute). She is the author of Whistleblowing for Change (2021), Networked Disruption (2013), Disrupting Business (2013) and Networking (2006). She was a member of the Transparency International Anti-Corruption Award Committee 2020. In 2019-2021, she was appointed by the Federal Government and the City of Berlin as a jury member for the Hauptstadtkulturfonds (Capital Cultural Fund), and in 2020-2023 she was a jury member for the Kulturlichter Prize, a new award for digital cultural education in Germany. For three years until 2014, she was a curator at the transmediale art & digital culture festival in Berlin, where she developed the year-round programme reSource transmedial culture Berlin and curated several conferences, workshops and art projects.
Lisa Deml [she/her] is an independent curator and writer based in Berlin. Initially trained as a journalist, she subsequently worked for public institutions and non-profit organisations, including Haus der Kulturen der Welt (HKW), Berlin; Haus der Kunst, Munich; and Ashkal Alwan, Beirut. Most recently, she curated the exhibition ‘Like Snow in the Middle of Summer’ with works by the Lebanese artist Rabih Mroué as part of Manifesta 15 (Granollers, 2024) and the international symposium ‘After Memory’ in collaboration with Víctor Fancelli Capdevila and Nathalia Lavigne and in partnership with ZKM | Center for Art and Media (Karlsruhe, 2024). As of March 2025, Marie-Sophie Dorsch and her are joint artistic directors of Halle für Kunst Lüneburg e.V.
Lori Emerson is an Associate Professor of Media Studies and Associate Chair of Graduate Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder. She is also the Founding Director of the Media Archaeology Lab. Her most recent book is Other Networks: A Radical Technology Sourcebook (Anthology Editions, 2025), now available for pre-order. She is also co-author of The Lab Book: Situated Practices in Media Studies (with Darren Wershler and Jussi Parikka), author of Reading Writing Interfaces, and co-editor of three collections. Her research focuses on uncovering crisis points in past media, or, points at which there was the possibility, never fully realized, for technologies to become “other” than what they are now. Lori Emerson also tries to undo established narratives of how contemporary technologies came to be by looking at artists and writers’ experiments with, for example, network technologies.
Eduardo Kac is internationally recognized for his groundbreaking work in contemporary art and poetry. In the early 1980s, Kac created digital, holographic and online works that anticipated the global culture we live in today, composed of ever-changing information in constant flux. In 1997 the artist coined the term “Bio Art,” igniting the development of this new art form with works such as his transgenic rabbit GFP Bunny (2000) and Natural History of the Enigma (2009), which earned him the Golden Nica, the most prestigious award in the field of media art. GFP Bunny has become a global phenomenon, having been appropriated by major popular culture franchises such as Sherlock, Big Bang Theory and Simpsons, and by writers such as Margaret Atwood and Michael Crichton. In 2017, Kac created Inner Telescope, a work conceived for and realized in outer space with the cooperation of French astronaut Thomas Pesquet. In 2024, Kac’s Ágora flew to deep space aboard the Centaur rocket and is now in a perpetual heliocentric orbit. Kac’s Adsum landed on the Moon in 2025. Kac’s singular and highly influential career spans poetry, performance, drawing, printmaking, photography, artist’s books, early digital and online works, holography, telepresence, bio art, and space art. Read more.
Nathalia Lavigne [she/her] works as an art researcher, writer and curator. Post-doctoral fellow at MAC USP, she has a PhD from FAUUSP (University of São Paulo), with a dissertation entitled “(De) musealizations and practices of countercollecting in instantaneous archives.” During her PhD, she was a visiting researcher at The New School (NYC) and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin. She also has a master’s degree in Critical Theory and Cultural Studies from Birkbeck, University of London. Her research interests involve topics such as social documentation and circulation of images on social networks, cultural criticism, museum and media studies and art and technology. She writes for several art magazines, including Artforum, Contemporary &, ZUM (Instituto Moreira Salles) and Humboldt (Goethe). As a curator, she has held exhibitions such as “Against, Again: Art Under Attack in Brazil” (2020), at Anya and Andrew Shiva Gallery (John Jay College, CUNY, NYC) and “Tactics of Disappearance” (2021), at Paço das Artes (São Paulo). Since July 2024, she is a fellow at the KHK c:o/re.
Geert Lovink is a Dutch media theorist, internet critic and author of Uncanny Networks (2002), Dark Fiber (2002), My First Recession (2003), Zero Comments (2007), Networks Without a Cause (2012), Social Media Abyss (2016), Organization after Social Media (with Ned Rossiter, 2018), Sad by Design (2019) and Stuck on the Platform (2022). He studied political science at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and received his PhD from the University of Melbourne. In 2004 he founded the Institute of Network Cultures (www.networkcultures.org) at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (HvA). His centre organizes conferences, publications and research networks such as Video Vortex (online video), The Future of Art Criticism and MoneyLab (internet-based revenue models in the arts). Recent projects deal with digital publishing experiments, critical meme research, participatory hybrid events and precarity in the arts. From 2007-2018 he was media theory professor at the European Graduate School. In December 2021 he was appointed Professor of Art and Network Cultures at the UvA Art History Department. The Chair (one day a week) is supported by the HvA. Since early 2022 he is involved in support campaigns for Ukrainian artists, in particular UKRAiNATV, a streaming art studio network, operating out of Krakow.
João C. Magalhães is an Assistant Professor in Media, Politics, and Democracy at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and an incoming Senior Lecturer in AI and Trust at the University of Manchester, UK. His work concerns the multiple intersections of platforms and politics. In 2024, he started a 4-year project on the (re)making of content moderation, funded by a Veni grant from the Dutch Research Council.
Alex Wermer-Colan is a co-founder, long-time volunteer, and Executive Director of Philly Community Wireless. A resident of North Philadelphia, Alex has contributed to all facets of Philly Community Wireless’ growth and operations, including conducting installs throughout the coverage area, engaging in community outreach with residents and organizations, training and teaching volunteers and staff, overseeing software and networking infrastructure, and developing policies and fundraising strategies to sustain the organization. In addition to his work with Philly Community Wireless, Alex works as the Academic and Research Director at Temple University Libraries’ Loretta C. Duckworth Scholars Studio, where he supports research and teaching with emerging technologies across the disciplines. Alex holds a PhD in English literature with a focus on critical theory from the City University of University of New York’s Graduate Center. Alex serves as the Managing Editor for the Programming Historian in English, and his writing, translations, and dramaturgical work have in such publications as The Los Angeles Review of Books, New Directions, Harpers, New Criterion, PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art, Twentieth Century Literature, The Yearbook of Comparative Literature, dh+lib, Debates in the Digital Humanities, The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, Indiana University Press, and Lost & Found: The CUNY Poetics Document Initiative.
Bruna Zanolli is a specialist in community-centered connectivity and digital care, grounded in intersectional feminism, social and climate justice, and popular education. With 15+ years of experience and research in community radio, autonomous networks, and local technologies, she works to advance public-interest technologies. Bruna supports community networks in the Global South through the Local Networks project (in collaboration with Rhizomatica and APC) and contributes to Brazil’s telecom regulator Anatel on the Community Networks Committee, advocating for inclusive policies and sustainable funding. A Mozilla Open Web Fellow (2018/19) alumni, Bruna is part of the Transfeminist Digital Care Network and APC’s Feminist Internet Research Network (FIRN). She holds a master’s in Communication and Culture from MediaLab UFRJ and is a dedicated FLOSS enthusiast.
Header Image:
© Illustration of SSTV event “Still Life Alive” (by Carlos Fadon Vicente) which also included “Intercities São Paulo / Pittsburgh” from 1988, organized by the Digital Art Exchange (headed by artist Bruce Breland) [from DAX archives, Carnegie Mellon University, “Intercities Sao Paul-Pittsburgh” Jan. 25, 1988 Letter of May 31 to Breland/Kocher from Matuck FF44].
“[T]here really isn’t a clear distinction between the analog and the digital” – Interview with Lori Emerson
As part of the interdisciplinary workshop “After Networks: Reframing Scale, Reimagining Connections”, which will take place at the SuperC of RWTH Aachen University on April 16 and 17, 2025, media scholar Lori Emerson will come to Aachen and give a keynote speech about her new book “Other Networks: A Radical Technology Sourcebook” (Anthology Editions, 2025). We asked her a few questions in advance to get a better understanding of how she thinks about and works with networks.
Lori Emerson
Lori Emerson is an Associate Professor of Media Studies and Associate Chair of Graduate Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder. She is also the Founding Director of the Media Archaeology Lab. Find out more on her website.
In your new book Other Networks: A Radical Technology Sourcebook, you present networks that existed before or outside of the internet, digital as well as analog. What would you say do all of these different models of networks have in common?
Many of the networks in Other Networks began as small experiments by a few individuals that didn’t necessarily have aspirations to make sure these networks had a global reach, or that these networks could not be replicated by other individuals, or that they would overtake every other kind of communication at a distance. More, because of their relative simplicity, most of these networks can be recreated today for small groups of people. My hope is that, along with my colleague Dr. libi striegl who is the Managing Director of the Media Archaeology Lab (the lab I direct and that has supported a lot of the research behind Other Networks), we will continue to create “recipes” for building small “other networks.” We have already published a small pamphlet called Build Your Own Mini FM Transmitter that very clearly and carefully walks people who have no background at all in electronics through the process of making what’s basically a micro-broadcasting station.
Do you have a favorite network example?
I am fond of all the networks in Other Networks! But one particular network I like to talk about is an example of an imaginary network: the pasilalinic-sympathetic compass, also referred to as ‘snail telegraph.’ This network was created by French occultist Jacques-Toussaint Benoît to demonstrate that snails are capable of instantaneously and wirelessly transmitting messages to each other across any distance. Benoît’s theory was that in the course of mating snails exchange so-called “sympathetic fluids” which creates a lifelong telepathic bond which also enables them to communicate with each other. He believed he could induce snails to transmit messages faster and more reliably than by wired telegraph by placing a snail on top of a letter and then, with the prodding of an electric charge, the snail would transmit the letter to another snail placed at some distance. The pasilalinic-sympathetic compass itself consisted of twenty-four different wooden structures containing a zinc bowl, cloth that had been soaked in copper sulphate, and a snail glued to the bottom of the bowl. Benoît unsuccessfully demonstrated the snail telegraph to a journalist from La Presse, Jules Allix, in October 1850.
What is the materiality of a network? In your new book, you separated them into four categories: Wireless, Wired, Hybrid and Imaginary. How was the process of organizing the networks into these different categories? Do you think it helps to visualize how a network can be materialized?
Creating a taxonomy for organizing these other networks was the most challenging part of writing Other Networks and, like any taxonomy, the system I settled on is still far from perfect. It took me many months to come up with a system for organizing networks according to their underlying infrastructure and that didn’t simply replicate historiographic conventions of accounting for technological inventions chronologically or by inventor. In other words, I wanted to underscore that networks emerge, disappear, and re-emerge slightly configured or re-combined over and over again; they also are rarely the work of a single person. More, accounting for networks in terms of chronology or “inventor” usually distracts us from seeing networks as material. Today, despite all the excellent work that has been done to reveal the material underpinnings of the internet (from its undersea cables to cable landing stations etc.), still the vast majority of people don’t know where the internet is, how it works, or where it came from. It might as well be immaterial! By contrast, I wanted to make it clear in Other Networks how, for example, there’s radio in the internet; that radio is part of the electromagnetic spectrum; that, even though we can’t see it, the electromagnetic spectrum is a ubiquitous natural resource; and that we as individuals and as communities can learn how to access this natural resource. Perhaps it’s old fashioned to say so, but I still believe that understanding the materiality of networks and how they work empowers us to build our own networks.
Where do you see the future of networks? In the digital or analog space?
One thing that became clear to me in the course of doing research for Other Networks is that there really isn’t a clear distinction between the analog and the digital like I was taught in graduate school. Telegraph communications that use, for example, morse code and that are transmitted over telegraph or telephone wires are digital in the sense that they are pulses of electricity in much the same way that digital computers use pulses of electricity to indicate 1’s and 0’s. In this sense, I think the future of networks is less about whether they’re analog or digital and more about whether they are built for small, local communities; whether they are cooperatively owned rather than corporate-owned; whether they can be maintained over the long run without resorting to blackboxing; and, finally, whether they have built-in structures to resist surveillance, tracking, and monetization.
Thank you so much for the interview, Lori!
More information about the workshop, the program and registration can be found on this website.
Header photo: Jenna Maurice
Special issue of Cybernetics & Human Knowing out now!
We are happy to share that the special issue of Cybernetics & Human Knowing entitled “(Dis)entangling Cognition, Meaning, Modeling, and Environments” has been published.
The issue is guest edited by Alin Olteanu, Phillip H. Roth, and Gabriele Gramelsberger and includes many contributions from KHK c:o/re staff and fellows.
The foreword, written by Phillip H. Roth and Alin Olteanu, is available on the journal’s website.
