Entanglements of Valuing, Being and Knowing in Research

Maximilian Fochler1,2, Lisa Sigl1 1 Research Platform Responsible Research and Innovation in Academic Practice, University of Vienna 2 Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Vienna Is how researchers are evaluated - and what they value in their work - entangled with who they aim to be as researchers? Instinctively, most academics will agree to the hypothesis in this question. However, despite important prior studies, we know surprisingly little about the detailed processes in which valuing, being and knowing are entangled in research, or about researchers possibility to shape these entanglements. Current scientific and policy debates about how indicators might be changing academic knowledge production and calls for developing alternative ways for (e)valuating research give these questions a sense of imminent relevance. In the life sciences, as in other research fields, researchers increasingly doubt the meaningfulness of churning out as many papers as possible to prepare for the next job application or evaluation: They question whether this will help them achieve the kind of knowledge they strive for and worry that this might turn their attention from pursuing values important to them. This can lead researchers to reflect and question their identity, but also prompt them to carve out time to re-orient their work. Regimes that aim to assess, monitor and improve the efficiency of research practices such as the New Public Management shape and delimit the spaces in which researchers can act on these issues. It has been argued that these regimes of research governance and the effects they create shift researchers focus away from societal values and questions of academic citizenship. Recently, Responsible Research (RRI) and Innovation has emerged as a new governance effort to support the potential of research to create societal values and to put questions of societal responsibility at the core of the practices of researchers. However, how this new intervention will affect researchers practices is an open question. Our project will study how values and identities are entangled in life science researchers practices and decisions in knowledge production. We aim to accompany two life science research groups for more than two years, using methods of qualitative social science research to reflect what they aim to know, what they value and who they aim to be as researchers. As RRI is currently the most vividly discussed intervention into researchers practices, we will focus specifically on whether and how this enters researchers practices and perspectives. We see the wider relevance of our project in its ability to open new approaches on questions of pressing importance for both researchers and those governing research, such as: How to develop ways to assess the quality of research without strangling its creative and innovative potential? How to produce knowledge that allows researchers to also assume societal responsibility? We thus plan to discuss the results of our project with researchers, academic managers and policy makers.

The project contributed to a better understanding of how a stronger orientation towards social and ecological relevance in science is possible. Whether this can succeed also depends on the structural conditions of the current science system: How is research funded? What is valued? Do scientists have the space and time to reflect on what their research can and should achieve in larger contexts? As part of the project, social scientists from science and technology studies worked together with three groups from the soil and crop sciences. These sciences are particularly interesting because, firstly, the climate crisis is increasing the urgency of the problem and, secondly, there are already interesting intermediate paths between excellent basic research and applied research in these fields. In close collaboration, the social scientists researched the knowledge production of the cooperation partners and their framework conditions. In addition, the wider scientific disciplines and their development were also examined. The project team conducted interviews in the international field and analyzed literature to understand how debates and arguments changed over a longer period of time. This made it possible to shed light on both the conditions under which decisions are made in research groups and how disciplines change. In this way, the project contributes to understanding what different levers for change can be and how better conditions for relevant research can be created. The results of the project point to three central levers for strengthening social relevance in science. The first of lever is the training of the next generation of scientists. This can be achieved, for example, through courses that focus on social aspects and the social relevance of research. Secondly, the results of the project point to the responsibility of the scientific communities themselves to continuously reflect on which orientation could contribute to greater relevance in their field. The project shows how scientific fields can reflect on whether it is necessary to take new directions in the face of current challenges. For example, overview articles stating what knowledge is needed for certain problems can be strong connecting points. As a third lever for strengthening social relevance, the project identifies the conditions for research at universities. The project shows that it would be important to implement more evaluation mechanisms that focus less on the quantity and more on the quality of the research produced, also in terms of its social relevance. Another factor is time: if researchers have no time to think about how their research could tie in with current problems, they will not reorient themselves accordingly. In this sense, social relevance of research is also about creating the conditions for change.