Sabine Maasen

Practices of transdisciplinary research: close(r) encounters of science and society

ET ANOTHER SPECIAL ISSUE regarding interand transdisciplinarity may seem annoying to those readers who have followed the discussions about these issues in science policy circles. Interand transdisciplinarity have become buzzwords: their political prestige and ongoing fascination among researchers, notably in the domain of environmental or health issues, seem to rest on the impression that going interor transdisciplinary is ‘the right thing to do’. They strike such chords as ‘engage in responsible research’, ‘realize mutual learning’ and ‘orient science towards real-world problems and solutions’. Accordingly, transdisciplinary research has generated a host of projects and programs at all levels of funding (local, national, EU). Yet, little do we know as to how those research projects or programs, which explicitly claim to be part of such a new mode of knowledge production, actually operate. Previous research on transdisciplinarity has often concentrated on programmatic, epistemological and conceptual questions. Studies on the practices of transdisciplinary research are few and mostly directed toward interdisciplinary research (eg Weingart and Stehr, 2000). The articles collected in this special issue cover both interand transdisciplinary research projects or programs. Based on empirical research, we set out to provide a first overview of a range of projects pursued in this new mode of knowledge production and ask what the specific features of these projects really are. The introduction thus opens the floor for detailed case studies by first providing some definitions. Next, we give an overview of the themes of the articles and the methods employed. The main part of this introduction is devoted to a discussion of the findings of the articles assembled in this special issue: What are the different ways in which knowledge in transdisciplinary research is produced and evaluated? We will show that transdisciplinary research employs a wide range of institutional arrangements, procedures and methods in order to realize transdisciplinary knowledge production and evaluation. It will become evident that new modes of cooperative practices give rise to novel forms of organizing research which, in turn, structure cooperative research in novel ways. In addition to this, interand transdisciplinary research is about to have repercussions on university-based science at large. From this perspective, these cooperative forms of knowledge production are not only interesting in themselves; they are also a case for a new order of academic knowledge production. The call for producing ‘socially robust knowledge’ that is not only scientifically sound but also socially acceptable exerts all kinds of disciplining effects on persons (eg on researchers, citizens, administrators, etc), organizations (eg funding agencies, cooperating firms), Y

Converging Technologies – Diverging Reflexivities? Intellectual Work in Knowledge-Risk-Media-Audit Societies

The technological changes of the present are both complex and most likely far-reaching in their consequences. They thus force us to rethink various issues – among others, the relation of techno-science and society (Gibbons et al. 1994) and, particularly, the role of reflexive activities and institutions accompanying the current shift in this relation. True, scholars dispute whether this shift has involved a radical transition (e.g. Godin 1998, Rip 1997) or just an extension of earlier trends (Weingart 1997). Most of them, however, hold that science has become both more visible and more accountable than ever before.

Self-Help: The Making of Neosocial Selves in Neoliberal Society

Throughout the last two decades, therapeutic practices have come to permeate society in various forms and fashions. Indeed, various authors have noted that we live in a world that may justly be characterized by an intensified and highly variegated preoccupation with the self (e.g., Giddens, 1991; Maasen, 1998; Rimke 2000, p. 61; Taylor, 1989). In addition to therapy proper, counseling and self-help have assumed increasing popularity. Journals, radio, television, Internet — wherever one looks, one finds yet another new version of (one-way) therapy and counseling. While the individual variants differ enormously as to their ambition, expertise, and impact, they all imply certain requirements in terms of a highly specific kind of communication: first, they are firmly based upon everybody’s capability to perform a demanding discourse called therapeutic communication. It entails our ability to present a problem to an expert, who will then help us, as a layperson, to solve that problem in various settings (be it short-term, long-term therapy or counseling). Second, they require that one knows when to seek professional help and how to choose among various offers on the market (you pick up the phone, click into the self-help chat, or buy a book). Third, in all cases you need to transfer the lessons learned in special settings (on the couch or in a group seminar) into your everyday life.

Introduction: Reviving a Sociology of Willing Selves

Most recently, the neurosciences have become fashionable in society. They stimulate all kinds of initiatives: neuro-didactics, neuro-theology, neuro-economy, and neuro-technology inspire educational, spiritual, industrial, or ‘neuro-ceutical’ approaches to governing selves and society alike. Call it hype or horror: the recent fad, provocatively stated, is ultimately about brainy selves happily living in neuro-society explained by the neurosciences and largely regulated by neuro-technologies. In truth, while this abbreviated storyline is, as yet, only part of the daydreams of single entrepreneurs in the domain of consulting (see Lynch, 2004), it has already affected general media discourse. Various applications of the neurosciences have attracted journalists’ interest. More often than not, the findings have been glossed over in a more humoristic note. Neuro-marketing, for instance, is being mocked as revealing insights that are not really new with the help of costly experimentation and instrumentation. Above all, neuro-marketing seems to have found out that favorite brands are favored by our brains, too (Schnabel, 2003).

Was bio bedeutet. Soziomaterielle Konfigurationen von TechnoNatures

Die Frage nach Materialitäten sowie nach ihren Bedeutungen in der sozialen Welt, die Frage der Artefakte, der natürlichen Dinge und Prozesse, der Substanzen und Organismen sowie der (immer neuen) Technologien lässt die Sozialund Kulturwissenschaften nicht mehr los. Herbert Kalthoff, Torsten Cress und Tobias Röhl führen dies auf zwei Gründe zurück: „Zum einen lässt sich eine gesellschaftliche Sensibilisierung durch eine zunehmende Ausdehnung von Technologien in alltägliche und professionelle Lebenswelten beobachten; zum anderen haben empirische und konzeptionelle Entwicklungen in der Wissenschaftsund Technikentwicklung dazu beigetragen, dass die Sozialund Kulturwissenschaften die materielle Dimension von Kultur und Gesellschaft gegenwärtigen.“1 Eben dies fordere die Sozialund Kulturwissenschaften heraus, einerseits ihren Begriff von Materialitäten zu schärfen (im Sinne von Materialien, aber etwa auch Organismen und Artefakten),2 andererseits, Materialitäten und Sozialitäten zu symmetrisieren, so Theodore Schatzki: „[T]echnology is integrally woven with the nexuses of practice and materiality through which people coexist.“3 Darüber hinaus, so würden wir ergänzen wollen, ist an die Produktion von Bedeutungen mit Bezug auf die jeweils interaktiv hervorgebrachten sozio-materiellen Konfigurationen zu denken: Konfigurationen, die sich beispielsweise um das Phänomen des naturbelassenen Nahrungsmittels ranken, schließen zunächst Menschen (Züchter oder (Ver-)Käufer), Organismen (Körper), Artefakte (Düngevorrichtungen, Sortieranlagen) 1.

Neue Subjekte, neue Sozialitäten, neue Gesellschaften

„Wer beantwortet, da es die Wissenschaft nicht tut, die Frage: was sollen wir denn tun? Und: wie sollen wir unser Leben einrichten?“ (Weber 1973, 105).