Agenda Setting in den Geisteswissenschaften - fiw.uni-bonn.de · Forschungspolitisches Agenda...

Agenda Setting in den Geisteswissenschaften

Vortrag zur DAAD-Sommeruniversität

David Kaldewey (FIW, Universität Bonn)

15. Juli 2015

Was heißt Agenda Setting im Bereich von Wissenschaft und Forschung ?

• "Schwerpunkte in der Forschungs- und Innovationspolitik werden heute im Zusammenspiel von Wissenschaft, Unternehmen, Politik, Medien und Öffentlichkeit gesetzt. Doch welches die richtigen Themen sind, wie und wo die öffentlichen und privaten Ressourcen optimal eingesetzt werden, das ist eine Herausforderung für Forschung und Politik gleichermaßen. Mit der Festlegung von Prioritäten und Posterioritäten ist zugleich ein Agenda Setting verknüpft, in dem Forschungsschwerpunkte definiert und Fördermittel konzentriert werden.“ (Arend Oetker, Präsident des Stifterverbands, 2009)

• "Der Begriff des Agenda Setting wurde in den 1970er-Jahren von amerikanischen Soziologen in Umlauf gebracht. Ursprünglich sollte er die Fähigkeit von Massenmedien bezeichnen, ihrem Publikum zwar nicht bestimmte Meinungen, aber dafür Themen aufdrängen zu können. (…) Das Agenda Setting in der Wissenschaftspolitik folgt diesem Prinzip der temporären Festlegung von Prioritäten. Den Forschern werden nicht Ergebnisse oder Theorien aufgedrängt — wie denn auch? —, sondern Gebiete. Forschungspolitisches Agenda Setting lebt dabei entscheidend davon, dass Wissenschaftler in ihrer Tätigkeit nicht nur eigenen Gesichtspunkten folgen, sondern auch durch externe Anreize erreichbar sind.“ (Jürgen Kaube, 2009)

Ein Schritt zurück: Wie kommt die Wissenschaft zu ihren Theorien, Problemen und Themen?

• theory choice

• problem choice

• agenda setting, priority setting

• research portfolio management

theory choice

• Wie entscheiden Wissenschaftler über konkurrierende Theorien?

• Problem der Unterdeterminiertheit von Theorien: Eine Theorie kann durch empirische Beobachtungen alleine weder verifiziert noch falsifiziert werden, da immer andere Theorien gegeben oder denkbar sind, die durch die Daten gleichermaßen gestützt werden.

• Problem der Wertgeladenheit wissenschaftlichen Wissens: Bei der Wahl konkurrierender Theorien können neben epistemischen Werten auch nicht nicht-epistemische (z.B. ökonomische, ethische oder soziale) Werte zur Geltung kommen.

problem choice • Wie entscheiden sich Wissenschaftler, welche Probleme, Fragen oder im

weitesten Sinne Themenfelder sie in ihrer Forschung adressieren wollen?

• Wissenschaftsphilosophen unterscheiden verschiedene Typen von Forschung und damit zusammenhängende Formen der Problemwahl — z.B. Carrier (2011):

1. „epistemic research“: wissenschaftsinterne, theoriegenerierte oder durch gegebene technische Verfahren nahegelegte Problemwahl („knowledge driven“)

2. „application-driven research“: extern induzierte, an praktischen Relevanzen orientierte Problemwahl, wobei im Hintergrund meist politische oder ökonomische Kriterien wirksam sind („demand driven“)

3. „research in the public interest“: Festlegung der Forschungsagenda durch demokratische Öffentlichkeit bzw. durch diejenigen, die von den möglichen Resultaten der Forschung betroffen sind

problem choice (mögliche Kriterien, Beispiel eines Surveys unter

Biologen an US-Universitäten, Cooper 2009)

commercial influences as causing direct and immediate changes in theresearch practices of scientists. In contrast, I argue for the considerationof the place of the habitus of academic scientists as the adapt to and strate-gically engage in the commercialization of the university. Although there isa strong case that industry support for university research influences thekind of research problems faculty pursue, it is less clear what kind oftrade-offs might exist from these circumstances. Table 2 lists the means forthe importance of problem choice criteria by receipt of industry support.The most important criterion for both groups of faculty, as noted above, was‘‘enjoy doing this kind of research.’’ No significant difference in means wasfound for this criterion. Three other criteria ‘‘scientific curiosity,’’ ‘‘poten-tial contribution to scientific theory,’’ and ‘‘publication probability in pro-fessional journals’’ were rated highly by both groups of faculty as well;these criteria, however, were significantly less important for faculty whoreceived industry funds. In addition to interest in commercialization andpotential to patent discussed above, faculty who received support fromindustry indicated significantly more importance of ‘‘potential to generate

Table 2Means for Selected Problem Choice Criteria by Receipt of

Industry Support (1 ¼ Not Important to 5 ¼ Very Important)

No Industry

Support

Industry

Support Significance

Enjoy doing this kind of research 4.67 4.60

Scientific curiosity 4.65 4.47 ***

Potential contribution to scientific theory 4.23 3.98 ***

Publication probability in professional journals 3.91 3.76 *

Importance to society 3.81 4.00 **

Likelihood of clear empirical results 3.82 3.66 *

Create an environment suitable for graduate

training 3.40 3.52

Length of time required to complete research 3.02 2.94

Potential to generate income for my laboratory 2.52 2.93 ***

Likely interest by private firms in commercia-

lizing the discovery 1.71 2.22

***

Potential to patent and license the research

findings 1.62 1.89

***

Industry consulting opportunities 1.41 1.87 ***

Potential to create for-profit start-up from

research findings 1.43 1.62 ***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

640 Science, Technology, & Human Values

at Universitaet Bonn on May 5, 2015sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from

„Agenda Setting“, „Priority Setting“, „Research Portfolio Management“

• In der Wissenschafts- und Forschungsförderung kann grundsätzlich zwischen „strukturellen“ Programmelementen und „programmatisch-inhaltlichen“ Vorgaben unterschieden werden (z.B. Wissenschaftsrat 2006).

• Begriffe wie „agenda setting“, „priority setting“ oder „portfolio management“ verweisen auf Versuche, programmatisch-inhaltlich auf Forschungsthemen Einfluss zu nehmen.

• Übergeordnete Frage: Wie wird die Tagesordnung der Wissenschaft durch externe Akteure beeinflusst? Unterscheiden kann man etwa direkte und indirekte Formen des Einflusses.

Wie stellt sich das Problem der Problemwahl im Fachkulturenvergleich dar?

• Klassische Annahme (z.B. Zald 1991):

• Problemwahl in den Naturwissenschaften: internalistisch, durch theoretische Paradigmen und disziplinäre Entwicklungen bestimmt

• Problemwahl in den Geisteswissenschaften: durch kulturellen Hintergrund und gesellschaftliche Werte geprägt

• Problemwahl in den Sozialwissenschaften: oszilliert zwischen diesen beiden Modi (Zald: sociology as „quasi-science“ and „quasi-humanities“)

Wie stellt sich das (wissenschaftspolitische) „Agenda Setting“ und „Priority Setting“ im

Fachkulturenvergleich dar?

• Eine wichtige Differenz liegt in den Kosten der Forschung in den jeweiligen Disziplinen

• Die Differenz alternativer Themensetzungen ist nicht in allen Fachkulturen gleichermaßen evident und folgenreich (wie etwa in der medizinischen Forschung)

• Es gibt sowohl integrative, disziplinenunabhängige wissenschaftspolitische Förderprogramme (bspw. DFG, ERC), wie auch spezifische Programme für bestimmte Fachkulturen

Beispiele für Förderprogramme der Geisteswissenschaften

• Beispiel VW-Stiftung: Schlüsselthemen der Geisteswissenschaften (seit 1998), später umbenannt in: Schlüsselthemen für Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft (2011-2014) und charakterisiert als: „interdisziplinäre Projekte zu zentralen gesellschaftlichen Themen“„

• Beispiel EU: HERA (Humanities in the European Research Area); bislang drei Förderschwerpunkte: > „Humanities as a Source of Creativity and Innovation“ & „Cultural Dynamics: Inheritance and Identity“ (2009)> „Cultural Encounters“ (2012) > „Uses of the Past“ (2015)

• Beispiel Bund: BMBF-Rahmenprogramm Geistes-, Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften: „Wissen für kulturelle und soziale Orientierung“ (2013-2017) — mit sechs bzw. sieben Schwerpunkten:> Orte und Freiräume für Forschung (z.B. Käte Hamburger Kollegs, Geisteswissenschaftliche Zentren)> Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften weltweit (z.B. Max Weber Institute, HERA-Kooperationen) > Informationsinfrastrukturen (z.B. eHumanities, gesis)> Wissenschaftlicher Nachwuchs> Kulturelles Erbe und Forschungsmuseen> Religion (z.B. Zentren für Islamische Theologie)> Kulturelle Vielfalt und Zivilgesellschaft

Die diskursive Konstruktion von Problemen und Forschungsfragen

• Sowohl das Problem der Problemwahl wie das Problem des Agenda Setting muss auch historisch perspektiviert werden

• Struktureller und semantischer Wandel (Ko-Evolution)

• Struktureller Wandel: Bspw. „Finalisierung“ der Wissenschaft (Böhme et al. 1973) oder „Mode 2“-These (Gibbons et al. 1994). Diagnostiziert wird eine im historischen Verlauf zunehmende Bedeutung externer Kriterien bei der Problemwahl

• Semantischer Wandel: Wie werden Probleme oder Forschungsfragen überhaupt als solche markiert und plausibilisiert?

Beispiel für semantischen Wandel: von „problems“ zu „challenges“

• Emergenz und Etablierung einer neuen wissenschaftspolitischen Leitsemantik innerhalb weniger Jahre: „Grand Challenges“ oder „Societal Challenges“

• Bill Gates: „Grand Challenges in Global Health“-Initiative (2003)

• Gates und viele andere betonen ihre Inspiration durch David Hilberts Liste mit 23 „mathematischen Problemen“ (1900)

• Hilbert spricht allerdings nicht von „challenges“ oder gar „grand challenges“ - diese Semantik existierte damals noch gar nicht

• Offene Forschungsfrage: Gibt es einen langfristigen semantischen Wandel von „problems“ zu „challenges“? Und wenn ja: ändert sich damit die Struktur des Problems der Problemwahl und damit auch die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Forschung selbst?

„Problems“ und „Challenges“: google ngram

Web of Science / publications in relation to the entire corpus

0

0,015

0,03

0,045

0,06

1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2014

problem[s], n = 1.667.959challenge[s], n = 494.587

Google books ngrams

0,00 %

0,01 %

0,01 %

0,02 %

0,02 %

0,000 %

0,015 %

0,030 %

0,045 %

0,060 %

1800 1826 1852 1878 1904 1930 1956 1982 2008

problem[s] (y1) challenge[s] (y2)

„Problems“ und „Challenges“: Web of Science

Web of Science / publications in relation to the entire corpus

0

0,015

0,03

0,045

0,06

1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2014

problem[s], n = 1.667.959challenge[s], n = 494.587

Google books ngrams

0,00 %

0,01 %

0,01 %

0,02 %

0,02 %

0,000 %

0,015 %

0,030 %

0,045 %

0,060 %

1800 1826 1852 1878 1904 1930 1956 1982 2008

problem[s] (y1) challenge[s] (y2)

Der „Grand Challenges“-Diskurs: Diffusion und Integration

• Ursprung des Diskurses:

• computational science, information technology, artificial intelligence (seit 1987)

• Diffusion:

• environmental research, geophysical research, sustainability sciences (vereinzelt in den 1990er Jahren, verstärkt seit ca. 2000)

• Physik, Biologie und Lebenswissenschaften (seit 2001)

• Global Health (seit 2003)

• Engineering (2008)

• Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaften (seit ca. 2012)

• Zusammenfassend: In der Zwischenzeit ist die GC-Semantik in sämtliche disziplinären Kontexte diffundiert — und fungiert damit als integrierendes Narrativ für das Wissenschaftssystem insgesamt

„Problems“ und „Challenges“: Ingenieurwissenschaften

Web of ScienceAuswahl der research areas

Web of Science / humanities / smoothing = 3

0

0,004

0,008

0,012

0,016

0,02

0

0,008

0,016

0,024

0,032

0,04

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014

problem[s], n = 32.410 (y1)challenge[s], n = 10.246 (y2)

Web of Science/ social sciences / smoothing = 3

0

0,01

0,02

0,03

0,04

0,05

0

0,018

0,036

0,054

0,072

0,09

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014

problem[s], n = 200.174 (y1)challenges[s], n = 67.863 (y2)

Web of Science / natural sciences / smoothing = 3

0

0,003

0,006

0,008

0,011

0,014

0

0,016

0,032

0,048

0,064

0,08

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014


Web of Science / engineering / smoothing = 3

0

0,008

0,016

0,024

0,032

0,04

0

0,032

0,064

0,096

0,128

0,16

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014


engineering: a) engineering b) computer science c) telecommunications

natural sciences: a) mathematics b) physics c) chemistry d) astronomy astrophysics

social sciences: a) psychology b) business Economics c) education educational research d) goverment law e) social sciences other topics f) sociology

humanities: a) philosophy b) history c) linguistics d) literature

„Problems“ und „Challenges“: Naturwissenschaften



0

0,004

0,008

0,012

0,016

0,02

0

0,008

0,016

0,024

0,032

0,04

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014



0

0,01

0,02

0,03

0,04

0,05

0

0,018

0,036

0,054

0,072

0,09

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014



0

0,003

0,006

0,008

0,011

0,014

0

0,016

0,032

0,048

0,064

0,08

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014



0

0,008

0,016

0,024

0,032

0,04

0

0,032

0,064

0,096

0,128

0,16

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014






„Problems“ und „Challenges“: Sozialwissenschaften



0

0,004

0,008

0,012

0,016

0,02

0

0,008

0,016

0,024

0,032

0,04

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014



0

0,01

0,02

0,03

0,04

0,05

0

0,018

0,036

0,054

0,072

0,09

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014



0

0,003

0,006

0,008

0,011

0,014

0

0,016

0,032

0,048

0,064

0,08

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014



0

0,008

0,016

0,024

0,032

0,04

0

0,032

0,064

0,096

0,128

0,16

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014






„Problems“ und „Challenges“: Geisteswissenschaften



0

0,004

0,008

0,012

0,016

0,02

0

0,008

0,016

0,024

0,032

0,04

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014



0

0,01

0,02

0,03

0,04

0,05

0

0,018

0,036

0,054

0,072

0,09

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014



0

0,003

0,006

0,008

0,011

0,014

0

0,016

0,032

0,048

0,064

0,08

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014



0

0,008

0,016

0,024

0,032

0,04

0

0,032

0,064

0,096

0,128

0,16

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014






„Problems“ und „Challenges“: Fachkulturen im Vergleich



0

0,004

0,008

0,012

0,016

0,02

0

0,008

0,016

0,024

0,032

0,04

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014



0

0,01

0,02

0,03

0,04

0,05

0

0,018

0,036

0,054

0,072

0,09

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014



0

0,003

0,006

0,008

0,011

0,014

0

0,016

0,032

0,048

0,064

0,08

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014



0

0,008

0,016

0,024

0,032

0,04

0

0,032

0,064

0,096

0,128

0,16

1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2014






„Grand Challenges“ als Agenda für die Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaften? — Beispiel 1

European Commission (2009): New Societal Challenges for the European Union. New Challenges for Social Sciences and the Humanities. (EUR 24178 EN).2 N E W S O C I E T A L C H A L L E N G E S F O R T H E E U R O P E A N U N I O N 3N E W C H A L L E N G E S F O R S O C I A L S C I E N C E S A N D T H E H U M A N I T I E S

RESPONDING TO MAJOR SOCIETAL CHALLENGES

Who can give convincing answers to questions such as:

� What will the world look like in 2025?

� How can creativity be fostered in economy and society?

� What compromises are necessary to preserve the environment?

� Why does intolerance still thrive?

� Which policies can better help feed the world?

� Are high rates of unemployment among young people unavoidable?

� How will climate change affect the regions of Europe?

� Are security policies threatening freedoms and rights?

� How to combine national, European and other cultural and political identities?

Researchers in social sciences and the humanities can. They can help understand the world around us and act upon it if we have a clearer grasp of these situations. They can help Europe tackle these issues and succeed in its socio-economic and poli-tical development.

However, these societal challenges are complex. They require not one answer but rather a combination of answers from economics, sociology, history, anthropology, geography, political science and other relevant disciplines, based on different data, tools, concepts and interpretations.

In addition, research results in social sciences and the humanities are often overlooked when it comes to using knowledge for policies and taking decisions which affect European citizens.

This is why the European Commission wants to promote a new approach to research in social sciences and the humanities, a new approach that enhances interdisciplina-rity and promotes social sciences and the humanities knowledge in the public debate.


Doel, Wim van den (2012): Social Sciences and Humanities. Essential Fields for European Research and in Horizon 2020. (LERU advice paper Nr. 11).

15. The societal challenges identified in the process to establish Horizon 2020 are by their very nature complex, and tackling them requires drawing on insights, approaches and perspectives from across the entire research base. A broad knowledge economy enables flexibility, creativity and variety of multidisciplinary approaches to tackle these big issues, and Social Science and Humanities research is an essential perspective.

16. None of the societal challenges are entirely new - individuals, communities and societies have been adapting and changing in response to changing energy supplies, technologies, climate, health, resources and demographics for hundreds of years. These changes have, in turn, profound implications for our economic and personal wellbeing at an intercultural level and impact on business, government and cultural interactions. Analysis of the past and understanding societies, beliefs and values can be a critical factor in understanding how we can respond effectively to these continuing challenges. SSH research enables us to have a greater understanding of change and adaptation as a process and imagining future scenarios.

17. Therefore, LERU encourages the full participation of Social Science and Humanities researchers in the agenda setting process in relation to all societal challenges, meaning that SSH researchers will take part in the whole process, from problem formulation to project evaluation and project implementation. Researchers or research consortia addressing the societal challenges should be selected on the basis of their excellence in research and through a process of open calls.

18. The next sections discuss the relevance of SSH research in each of the six societal challenges in the EC’s Horizon 2020 proposal.


Nolan, Riall W. (2013): »The Future of Practice. Anthropology and the Grand Challenges«. In: A Handbook of Practicing Anthropology. Hrsg. von Riall W. Nolan. John Wiley & Sons, S. 391–396.

"Our world, it hardly need be said, is becoming more diverse and complex with every passing day. Communication and transport have moved difference in next door to each of us, both literally and metaphorically. We value this diversity; we celebrate and extol ist. And yet, to a large extent, we remain profoundly ignorant of the cultural worlds of others, even as we try to connect with them (...) What we do share, however, are predicaments, the ones we've come to call 'grand challenges.' These include such problems as climate change, sustainable energy, global health, and poverty. (...) These problems are not merely 'grand,' they are wicked. (...) Perhaps the worst — and most important — characteristic of wicked problems is that we can't afford not to address them. Our current attempts to deal with these wicked problems are spearheaded by disciplines such as science, engineering, and agriculture, which in turn are driven by a mindset that is highly empirical, focused on efficency, profit, and speed, in which cultural factors, if they appear at all, tend to be considered as obstacles. (...) Human culture — its nature and its consequences — are a huge missing piece of our attempts to create better and more sustainable futures for ourselves and for others. Whatever their accomplishments thus far, science and technology alone are unlikely to be sufficient for resolving the problems and challenges which now confront us.\\ This presents clear and enormous opportunities for anthropology (…)."


Kintigh, Keith W. et al. (2014): »Grand Challenges for Archaeology«. In: PNAS 111(3), S. 879–880.

addressing them will require demanding,long-term cross-disciplinary collaborationsthat have the potential to yield transformativeresults with impacts cascading far beyondarchaeology.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank the anonymousarchaeologists who proposed challenges through theWeb-based survey and the Santa Fe Institute for hostingthe grand challenge workshop. This work was supportedby National Science Foundation Grant 1202413.

1 Kintigh KW (2013) Grand challenges for archaeology: Crowdsourcing report. Available at https://core.tdar.org/document/391233.Accessed January 6, 2014.2 Kintigh KW, et al. (2014) Grand challenges for archaeology.Am Antiq 79(1):5–24.

Box 1. Grand challenges for archaeology

A. Emergence, communities, and complexity1. How do leaders emerge, maintain themselves, and transform society?2. Why and how do social inequalities emerge, grow, persist, and diminish, and with

what consequences?3. Why do market systems emerge, persist, evolve and, on occasion, fail?4. How does the organization of human communities at varying scales emerge from and

constrain the actions of their members?5. How and why do small-scale human communities grow into spatially and demographically

larger and politically more complex entities?6. How can systematic investigations of prehistoric and historic urban landscapes shed new

light on the social and demographic processes that drive urbanism and its consequences?7. What is the role of conflict—both internal factional violence and external warfare—in the

evolution of complex cultural formations?B. Resilience, persistence, transformation, and collapse

1. What factors have allowed for differential persistence of societies?2. What are the roles of social and environmental diversity and complexity in creating resilienceand how do their impacts vary by social scale?

3. Can we characterize social collapse or decline in a way that is applicable across cultures, andare there any warning signals that collapse or severe decline is near?

4. How does ideology structure economic, political, and ritual systems?C. Movement, mobility, and migration

1. What processes led to, and resulted from, the global dispersal of modern humans?2. What are the relationships among environment, population dynamics, settlement structure,

and human mobility?3. How do humans occupy extreme environments, and what cultural and biological

adaptations emerged as a result?4. Why does migration occur and why do migrant groups maintain identities in some cir-

cumstances and adopt new ones in others?D. Cognition, behavior, and identity

1. What are the biophysical, sociocultural, and environmental interactions out of which modernhuman behavior emerged?

2. How do people form identities, and what are the aggregate long-term and large-scale effectsof these processes?

3. How do spatial and material reconfigurations of landscapes and experiential fields affectsocietal development?

E. Human–environment interactions1. How have human activities shaped Earth’s biological and physical systems, and when did

humans become dominant drivers of these systems?2. What factors drive or constrain population growth in prehistory and history?3. What factors drive health and well-being in prehistory and history?4. Why do foragers engage in plant and animal management, and under what circumstances

does management of a plant or animal lead to its domestication?5. Why do agricultural economies emerge, spread, and intensify, and what are the relationshipsamong productive capacity, population, and innovation?

6. How do humans respond to abrupt environmental change?7. How do humans perceive and react to changes in climate and the natural environment overshort- and long-terms?

880 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1324000111 Kintigh et al.

OPINION

Grand challenges for archaeologyKeith W. Kintigha,1, Jeffrey H. Altschulb, Mary C. Beaudryc,Robert D. Drennand, Ann P. Kinzige, Timothy A. Kohlerf,g,W. Fredrick Limph, Herbert D. G. Maschneri, William K. Michener j,Timothy R. Pauketatk, Peter Peregrineg,l, Jeremy A. Sabloffg,Tony J. Wilkinsonm, Henry T. Wrightg,n, and Melinda A. ZederoaSchool of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287;bStatistical Research, Inc., Tucson, AZ 85751; cDepartment of Archaeology, Boston University,Boston, MA 02215; dCenter for Comparative Archaeology, Department of Anthropology,University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260; eSchool of Life Sciences, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe, AZ 85287; fDepartment of Anthropology, Washington State University,Pullman, WA 99164; gSanta Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501; hDepartment of Geosciences,University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701; iIdaho Museum of Natural History, Idaho StateUniversity, Pocatello, ID 83209; jUniversity Libraries, The University of New Mexico,Albuquerque, NM 87131; kDepartment of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801; lDepartment of Anthropology, Lawrence University, Appleton,WI 54911; mDepartment of Archaeology, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, UnitedKingdom; nMuseum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; and oDepartment ofAnthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution,Washington, DC 20013

Archaeology is a source of essential dataregarding the fundamental nature of humansocieties. Researchers across the behavioraland social sciences use archeological data inframing foundational arguments. Archaeo-logical evidence frequently undergirds debateon contemporary issues. We propose here toanswer “What are archaeology’s most im-portant scientific challenges?” The questionarose as we sought to develop recommen-dations for investments in computationalinfrastructure that would enable the disci-pline to address its most compelling ques-tions. Absent a list of these questions, weundertook to develop our own.The project steering committee was com-

posed of archaeologists (K.W.K., J.H.A.,W.F.L., and J.A.S.), an ecologist (A.P.K.),and an information scientist (W.K.M.). Thesteering committee selected other partici-pants (the additional authors), striving tocompose a small group of experts whosework broadly represents areas of the world,diverse theoretical perspectives, and therange of social complexity in the past.A spring 2012 crowd-sourcing effort was

effected through e-mail requests and listservpostings by the major North American andEuropean professional associations. We askedour colleagues to identify problems ofbroad scientific and social interest that coulddrive cutting edge research in archaeologyfor the next decade and beyond. We received

181 responses to the Web-based survey (1)that requested a concise statement of agrand challenge problem and, optionally,a justification of its importance and demo-graphic information about the respondent.The self-selected respondents were primar-ily from the United States and were splitacross academic, consulting, and govern-ment employment sectors.The authors then convened in a summer

2012 workshop at the Santa Fe Institute toaugment, prioritize, and refine the crowd-sourced grand challenges. It was agreed thatthe problems should have global significance,although they may address processes oper-ating at spatial scales from households toempires and at a broad range of temporalscales. The challenges had to be, in principle,susceptible to a solution supported by data.Before viewing the crowd-sourced sugges-tions, we proposed and prioritized our ownchallenges. Then we considered and culled thecrowd-sourced challenges that described fun-damental problems in science and integratedthem with those we had developed indepen-dently, resulting in the 25 grand challengespresented in Box 1. After the workshop, theauthors wrote concise summaries with illus-trative references for each challenge (2).These challenges focus on understanding

the dynamics of cultural processes and theoperation of coupled human and naturalsystems, recognizing that humans—mediated

by culture—both affect and are affected bytheir natural environments. The challengesaddressed questions of emergence, complex-ity, demography, mobility, identity, resilience,and human–environment interactions. Thereis a notable lack of concern with the earliest,the largest, and the otherwise unique. Theyshow an increasing concern with relevance tothe contemporary world. There is no lack ofregard for prehistory; the facts of the pastprovide the evidence that is essential to con-front all of these questions. We harbor noillusions about the difficulties of addressingthese classes of problems. Rather, we sharea conviction that these are the domains inwhich the most important problems reside.Many of the cultural processes implicated

here undoubtedly involve complex, nonlinearrelationships in which cause and effect arenot readily distinguished. Further complicat-ing our task, short-term human responses toproblems often have unintended consequen-ces, in both the short and long terms. Asa consequence, addressing many of thesechallenges will require both sophisticatedmodeling and large-scale synthetic researchthat are only now becoming possible.Although new archaeological field work

will be needed, the greatest payoff will derivefrom exploiting the explosion in systemati-cally collected archaeological data that hasoccurred since the mid-20th century, largelyin response to laws protecting archaeologicalresources. Both the needed modeling andsynthetic research will require far more com-prehensive online access to thoroughly docu-mented research data and to unpublishedreports detailing the contextual informationessential for the comparative analyses. Indeed,our survey emphatically reinforced the needfor the kinds of online access provided bythe Digital Archaeological Record (UnitedStates) and the Archaeology Data Service(United Kingdom). Although the challengesoffered here situate archaeology squarelywithin the landscape of contemporary science,

Author contributions: K.W.K., J.H.A., M.C.B., R.D.D., A.P.K., T.A.K., W.F.L.,

H.D.G.M., W.K.M., T.R.P., P.P., J.A.S., T.J.W., H.T.W., and M.A.Z.

wrote the paper.1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected] opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations

expressed in this work are those of the author and do not

necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy

of Sciences.

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1324000111 PNAS | January 21, 2014 | vol. 111 | no. 3 | 879–880

OPINION

Anstelle eines Fazits: Wie realistisch und sinnvoll ist das Agenda Setting in den Geisteswissenschaften durch Förderprogramme?

„Eine Schwierigkeit der thematisch definierten Programmförderung in den Geisteswissenschaften liegt darin, dass sie Gefahr läuft, den Eigenwert geisteswissenschaftlicher Forschung in Frage zu stellen, indem sie die gesellschaftspolitische Relevanz geisteswissenschaftlicher Disziplinen in den Mittelpunkt rückt. Hinzu kommt, dass programmorientierte Förderung vielfach in der Logik von Problem und Lösung operiert, die der geisteswissenschaftlichen Forschung in dieser direkten Form nicht entspricht.“ (Wissenschaftsrat 2006: 83)

Agenda Setting in den Geisteswissenschaften - fiw.uni-bonn.de · Forschungspolitisches Agenda...

Documents

Transcript of Agenda Setting in den Geisteswissenschaften - fiw.uni-bonn.de · Forschungspolitisches Agenda...