Unite behind the Science! behind Who?
a Qualitative Analysis Oft the Scientists for Future Movements Understanding of Science.
Unite behind the Science! behind Who?
a Qualitative Analysis Oft the Scientists for Future Movements Understanding of Science.
Tuesday, 8 July 2025: 19:15
Location: SJES020 (Faculty of Legal, Economic, and Social Sciences (JES))
Oral Presentation
The Scientist for Future (S4F) Movement describes itselfes as a „a non-institutional, non-partisan and interdisciplinary association of scientists“ who „[...] are committed to ensuring that scientific findings are appropriately incorporated into political debates and taken into account when shaping a sustainable future“ (Scientist for Future 2024). The S4F Movement positions itself in the contested field between science and politics. They represent an unprecedented organisation of scientists in the German-speaking world and are thus entering a field of activities to tackle the climate crisis while also trying to maintain scientific integrity.
As part of my examination, I conducted a qualitative analysis of the S4F's understanding of science in order to identify the ambivalences and potentials of these negotiations. To this end, I used Donna Haraways scientific-theoretical approach of situaded knowledges (Haraway 1988) and conducted episodic interviews which I then analysed with grounded theory methodology (Corbin and Strauss 1990). I identified two different understandings of science within S4F, which I describe as less formalised and less exclusive and more formalised and more exclusive towards, for example, different types of knowledges and epistemologies. The understandings of science constitute themselves in relation to each other in terms of their internal and external logic as well as through functional and strategic distinctions to a social extriority.
My analysis suggests that the representation of understandings of science is closely linked to social diagnoses of a credibility advantage or loss towards science. This largely determines the extent to which scientists constitute their role understandings as scientists within and outside of S4F and which areas of responsibility they perceive for the S4F movement. S4F can thus be utilized to illustrate and discuss how different types of knowledges and epistmologies are perceived and negotiated in the tension zone between science and politics in the context oft he climate crisis.
As part of my examination, I conducted a qualitative analysis of the S4F's understanding of science in order to identify the ambivalences and potentials of these negotiations. To this end, I used Donna Haraways scientific-theoretical approach of situaded knowledges (Haraway 1988) and conducted episodic interviews which I then analysed with grounded theory methodology (Corbin and Strauss 1990). I identified two different understandings of science within S4F, which I describe as less formalised and less exclusive and more formalised and more exclusive towards, for example, different types of knowledges and epistemologies. The understandings of science constitute themselves in relation to each other in terms of their internal and external logic as well as through functional and strategic distinctions to a social extriority.
My analysis suggests that the representation of understandings of science is closely linked to social diagnoses of a credibility advantage or loss towards science. This largely determines the extent to which scientists constitute their role understandings as scientists within and outside of S4F and which areas of responsibility they perceive for the S4F movement. S4F can thus be utilized to illustrate and discuss how different types of knowledges and epistmologies are perceived and negotiated in the tension zone between science and politics in the context oft he climate crisis.