The End of the Classical Scholar

Research has evolved over the past decades: collaborative networks have replaced the traditional scholar. In the Collaborative Research Center “Threatened Orders,” around 60 researchers from the social sciences and humanities have worked over 12 years on 18 sub-projects, all focused on one question: How can we think differently about crises? Researchers approached this question by investigating threats presented by Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, the outbreak of the plague in the Roman Empire in 541 AD, or the New Year’s Eve incidents in Cologne in 2015/2016. Historian Professor Ewald Frie and sociologist Professor Boris Nieswand were lead researchers in the “Threatened Orders” collaborative research center. Together, they authored a book that focuses on the circumstances in which scientific outcomes are created rather than the outcomes themselves.

Your book, Keplerstraße 2, begins with a bike tour through Tübingen, passing by university buildings that have expanded not only spatially but have also become increasingly integrated into society over the course of their history. You write that science has become a profession like any other. Does this mean that science as a vocation for the truly dedicated scholar is a thing of the past?

Ewald Frie: Until the 1960s, science was primarily an endeavor of bourgeois men who saw themselves as an intellectual elite. Since then, science has become more professional and transparent. Today, positions and honors are awarded less through personal connections and more through objective criteria, such as publications or citations.

Boris Nieswand: The demands on scientists have changed significantly over the past decades. Research networks and excellence clusters have gained influence as organizational forms, where many people from different disciplines work together on a topic. The scholar who sits alone in their study is no longer part of the picture. In today’s scientific community, we need another breed of researcher.

What does this development in science mean for the knowledge it generates?

EF: In terms of history, everyday experiences have entered academic discourse although they might have been considered too mundane 50 years ago: the history of everyday life is now a field of research, as is the history of practices.

BN: Social sciences focus on research-oriented publications that address a specific problem. These publications are often created in projects that require planning and management. When people with individual backgrounds collaborate, they need to negotiate: What is a scientifically interesting topic, how should it be addressed, and what should a scientific text look like, in what format should it be published? 

Reading Keplerstraße 2 shows: the scientific community is much more normal than many think.

EF: Research is also a human and social practice, with all the consequences that entails. This means that formal and formal and informal criteria for evaluating research can differ.

BN: We must distinguish scientific practice from the theory of science and apply a realistic perspective. This means acknowledging that all people occasionally undermine their claims and values in practice. People do not behave as one might expect after reading a manual of the theory of science. As in other areas of social life, researchers often follow their practical reasoning and interact with their environment. Researchers’ social relationships and working conditions all influence their field of research.

Is science more vulnerable to human fallibility than researchers would like to admit?

EF: That sounds like a negative perspective to me. Science is a domain where people work independently and logically with certain career ambitions. These are positive human attributes. It can only work that way. What helps drive science forward then? The search for knowledge, of course, but also individual career ambitions.

BN: Individuals are required to form groups in the scientific community and develop working methods that are not prescribed by the theory of science. This often involves very practical questions: With whom can I work easily, with whom might it even be fun? If the ways of thinking and working styles of two people are in conflict, it would be wiser not to establish a research group together. It’s about negotiation processes between people with different biographies and expertise. 

You also focus on the social aspect of research in your book.

EF: A research network is a social group. Professionalism and emotions mix in everyday work. On retreats, you might be sitting together having a discussion with 40 other people. Everyone sees who says what and how much people contribute, everyone observes and judges each other – it’s a stressful situation. That’s why moments are particularly important where researchers are able to take time out together, share stories and laughter and create space for legends to grow. We describe some of these in our book, such as the “unforgiving reviewer” who is characterized as an external threat when researchers are sharing their stories. It’s legends like this that create identity
and cohesion.

BN: Emotions are important. They can release energy on the one hand but also have a paralyzing effect. When people criticize our projects or reject our ideas it can be quickly taken personally, because people are often dedicated to their research, it isn’t just work but a central part of their lives. You have to learn to deal with that in a team.

Are the humanities and social sciences ready for collaborating in networks? 

BN: Research proposals are evaluated based on what they promise as a result. Such a promise is harder for the humanities and social sciences to deliver than for others. Their research thrives on the desire to discover something new and the openness of knowledge, meaning a rather loose connection between the proposal and the results. We have to define our goals differently than, for example, the natural sciences.

EF: Humanities and social sciences do not seek solutions that can be applied consistently to a specific problem. In “Threatened Orders,” we found a pattern we could use to compare threat trajectories. However, we did not find a solution for all future crises. Our aim was to improve the perspective on crises. Humanities research is characterized by this openness. If the scientists recognize this, they can work excellently in collaborative projects.

Are we on the right path with the trend towards collaborative research?

BN: The current focus on collaborative research naturally has its own shortcomings. For example, too much emphasis is often placed on the number of published articles in publishing rather than article content. Despite this, I have the overall impression that this movement towards professionalization, teamwork, and the democratization of academic environments is the right one. The old logic system of science being led by a few seemingly outstanding bourgeois men does not seem to me to be the better alternative.

Text: Michael Pfeiffer

The current issue of Attempto! Download Attempto 62/2025, PDF, ca. 10 MB