Research

The digitalization of research cultures through big data, computer simulation, AI, etc. is now widespread, and artificial intelligence methods in particular have given digitalization a further boost in recent years. Nevertheless, the design and use of digital cognitive methods varies greatly from discipline to discipline. This can be investigated if digitalization is understood as a strategy of situated complexity management. “Situated” because the different disciplines are confronted with different concepts and problems of complexity. The research interest is derived from this tension between homogenization and diversity due to the pressure for change caused by digitalization. It aims at analyzing the research-immanent aspects of the diversity of digital research cultures (also in contrast to classical research cultures) within the framework of a comprehensive theory of research cultures.

The globalization of research cultures, in the sense of a universal understanding of what science is, has been the basis of the modern scientific revolution as a cosmopolitan trend from the very beginning. Nevertheless, differences in global scientific cultures can be observed. This can be understood and investigated if globalization is understood as an institutionally and knowledge-culturally situated cosmopolitanization in the sense of a variety of scientific cultures. The research interest is derived from this field of tension between cosmopolitanization and diversity through the pressure for change caused by globalization. The aim of this research design is to analyze the research-extrinsic aspects of the variety of scientific cultures as a contribution to a theory of cultures of research.

The central question is the genesis of scientific research methods and methodological reflection in science studies. It is the disciplinary situatedness that creates a diametrical incompatibility, especially between philosophical-general and sociological-empirical perspectives. The long-term goal of the center is therefore to bring together the different perspectives and methods under the term “expanded science and technology studies” (expanded STS).

The overarching methodological focus results from the exploration of the differential shifts in contemporary research cultures due to the specifically motivated pressures for change of digitalization and globalization. This requires an interdisciplinary research approach. The focus of the center on “cultures of research” is also highlighted by the interdisciplinary collaboration at the center with fellows from different disciplines. Bringing these various perspectives together under the above research questions requires reflection on the different methodological approaches of the individual disciplines of science studies. The program of the overarching methodological focus aims to develop an interdisciplinary scientific research approach as a situated, historical and comparative perspective in the sense of expanded STS.

Reflection on the understanding of complexity in different research cultures focuses on analyzing the different concepts of complexity, the ability to grasp complex processual ties and their characteristics such as non-linearity, hierarchical networks, new concepts of causality, etc.

Complex systems are becoming even more complex through life-like functionalization: materials should react adaptively to environmental influences, computer architectures should be neuro-morphic, organisms should become producers of vital biomaterials. The trend towards life-like functionalization poses major challenges not only to science, but also to technology and society, as the “engineering turn” is releasing countless, unprecedented entities into the environment. As this ultimately affects fundamental questions of society, many and very different actors are understandably demanding a say, which requires an increase in the participatory complexity of current research in the form of transdisciplinary cooperation with civil society actors.

The topic of emergent phenomena includes questions such as what happens when life-like qualities are transcended and the technical-natural entities of the “engineering turn” actually become alive, intelligent or self-active and act accordingly? Will this lead to entirely new technological environments? How can such new environments be regulated and controlled? What role will humans play?

The central theme of the “engineering turn” not only has consequences for forms of knowledge and participation in research, but also changes the practices and concepts of “engineering” itself. In addition to the classical computational design methods of computer-aided design, which are used in molecular biology as well as in architecture or mechanical engineering, machine learning methods are increasingly being used in the context of generative design. This is changing the practice of engineering and establishing a new “science of engineering” that also extends into traditional areas of engineering (e.g. biologization of mechanical engineering, generative design of adaptive materials, etc.). The changing practices of “engineering” were reflected on the basis of research cultures and their feedback with the classical practices of engineering.

One focus of the center is to reflect on the own research cultures and to further develop methods from the humanities and social sciences for “expanded science and technology studies”. The methodological focus is on linking the epistemic question and thus the philosophical and historical orientation of science and technology with the so far dominant sociological, ethnological and cultural approach of science and technology studies (STS). The previously separate disciplines of philosophy of science and technology, history of science and technology, and sociology of science and technology are to be integrated and brought together.

The question of a possible “engineering turn” is not limited to the observable epistemic consequences for current and future science, but can only be meaningfully categorized in terms of its scope if the transformation of science since the emergence of the technological sciences is reflected in a decidedly historical perspective. A historical contextualization and specification are necessary to adequately understand the changes in the present. In addition, the international orientation of the center offers the unique opportunity to adopt a directly comparative cultural perspective when analyzing the transformation of research cultures. The goal was to reflect historically on the “engineering turn” and to develop a contrasting perspective on the differences between “varieties of science” as manifestations of research cultures.