Susan Benz
2020 was a challenging year not only because of Corona. It should be of great concern that liberal democracies worldwide are under pressure. This is especially alarming when it happens in close proximity, such as in Hungary or Poland. Neither should we remain indifferent to the election fraud and repression against the liberal demonstrations in Belarus. Academia plays an important role in tackling the corona crises. But how does academia position itself in the political struggles that challenge our democracies? Can academia be a revolutionary force against such developments?
I contend that it is a bad idea to soften the border between science and politics, because every attempt to politicize science will inevitably backfire. To understand this, three dimensions in which academia impacts society need to be differentiated: the production of knowledge, the creation of an innovative environment, and methodological education.
The first might be the most obvious, because knowledge-production is a core concern and competence of science. Although not all societal developments originate from science, the more complex the society, the more important the role of academia. History has shown that the specific impact a certain research project might have can rarely be predicted precisely. Take, for example, the discoveries of Marie Curie or Paul Baran, which turned out to be revolutionary. Even though one cannot predetermine how scientific knowledge-production influences society, one can say that by being noticed every research project does influence the life we live in some way. Consequently, knowledge changes the world. And comparing our current standard of living to the one of our ancestors, we can say: for the better.
The second dimension of academic impact refers to an innovative sphere that evolves around research institutes and universities, conferences etc. It arises from discussions of problems and solutions, cultivating – in best case scenarios – an ongoing process of knowledge-production, -validation and -refutation. As academia demands constant questioning, it offers an environment for many different ways to explore answers and solutions. It brings people together, fostering new ideas, projects and collaborations that often go far beyond their fields of research. It is no coincidence that arts, political debates, start-ups and all matters of civil society flourish in and around academic circles. Here, academia impacts society beyond mere knowledge-production by creating an environment that is able to serve as a catalyst for societal progress.
The third dimension points to academia’s methodological education. Academia does not teach young people to simply believe claims, but to constantly question them. Therefore, a sound methodological education enables students to distinguish between facts and false claims within their fields of study and beyond. It is widely agreed that research results might look fancy at first glance. Yet, if the underlying methods are weak, so are the results. Because methods have such a major impact on results, at the outset it is tempting to choose research methods that underpin desirable outcomes; for example, when you want to have a certain influence on society, such as supporting certain political interests, promoting revolutions or defending liberal democracy in times of political struggle. Yet this is a false path. That is not to say that we should not stand up and become active against political oppression. But we have to do it openly, and must not use science to camouflage our activism. Scientists can very well be part of a revolution – Science cannot! If we bring bias into the methodological dimension, we will destroy the other two dimensions, which are immensely valuable to society: Future research based on intentionally biased assumptions, and thereby methodologies, cannot advance society, but can only lead it into aberrations that the originator of the bias might not be able to foresee. The process of knowledge-production is thus disrupted, while the precondition for the use of scientific results, i.e., the credibility of their scientific intention, is destroyed. Without such credibility, the process of knowledge-production will inevitably collapse.
The second dimension is also damaged when activism disguised as science brings bias into the academic sphere. On the one hand a false problem awareness is created and certain measures will appear as solutions to problems even though they do not address them at all. The credibility and validity of scientific thinking are undermined which will harm academia and thus destruct its innovative environment. On the other hand, the exemplary function of scientific publications influences future generations of researchers who will lose sight of impeccable scientific methods. As a result, this knowledge and its value are also being lost in society, leading rather to division than deliberation. After all, it becomes clear that it is not a good idea to participate in political revolution by deliberately or negligently biasing research results.
So, what can scientists do to promote change? Here are three ideas for everyday academic life: First, be honest when questioning your own research relevance, research with revolutionary potential is not only interesting for research purposes; Second, talk about your research outside academia, not only about your results but also about your methodologies; Finally, reflect on and reduce your biases. In times where lies are camouflaged as alternative facts, methodologically sound and therefore convincing research could be the most revolutionary thing of all.
Susan Benz is a PhD student and research assistant at the Centre for Media, Communication and Information Research (ZeMKI), Universität Bremen, Germany. Her research interests are within the field of media, communication and activism research.
