Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin - Startseite

Recent debates in Science Studies examine how the authority of expertise is negotiated in contemporary politics. While much attention has focused on explicit contestation of science, less is known about how research is routinely mobilized within democratic political institutions. Drawing on a neo-pragmatist framework, namely the distinction of “world” and “reality” as introduced by Luc Boltanski, we aim to examine how research and science are invoked and framed in parliamentary debates.

The analysis draws on a qualitative analysis of parliamentary documents from 2023 across five countries: Australia, Germany, Poland, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. An inductively developed coding scheme captures different ways in which research appears in parliamentary discourse: as evidence supporting political arguments, as expressions of value attributed to science, and as instances where research is problematized.

The findings show that in each country most mentions of science or research (between 50% and 70%) refer to what can be considered different forms of “value of science/research”. When praising science, politicians highlight country-specific areas impacted by research: Australia, Germany, and the UK focus on economic and medicinal areas, whereas Poland more strongly emphasizes society and culture. South Africa highlights both economy and society, but less so medicine. Similarly, the means through which science ought to implement value show country-specific patterns: While application and innovation, education, and knowledge gain are similarly often referred to in South Africa, speakers in Australia, Germany, and the UK stress application and innovation potential of research activities. In contrast, Poland focuses strongly on education and even less on knowledge gain than other countries.

National idiosyncrasies and cross-national patterns can be found for expressions of critique and problematization as well. For instance, politicians in Poland and South Africa expressed concern more frequently than the other countries. When criticizing, speakers rarely reject science outright. Instead, critique more often targets specific research outcomes and the credibility of specific research activities or actors.

By tracing how research is mobilized in parliamentary debates, the analysis highlights how parliamentary politics strategically invokes or challenges scientific knowledge and authority and facilitates one “reality of societal impacts”.

This research has been conducted within the project “Wider societal value of research and consequences of its assessment: A multi-country and multi-method study (MultiSocVal)” funded by Volkswagen Foundation.

https://hu-berlin.zoom-x.de/j/66137712462?pwd=bTF4VG9Ca1BxMkFqOE9xTFZxYldWQT09
Meeting-ID: 661 3771 2462