AK Science and Practice

How can dialogue between science and society be improved? Around 30 experts from politics, practice and science explored this question at the transfer workshop organised by the Bavarian Centre for Peace and Conflict Research (BZeFK) on 13–14 October in Augsburg.

Transfer is not a linear process that begins with scientific findings and then involves the unidirectional dissemination of knowledge beyond the boundaries of the scientific system, but rather a multifaceted, reciprocal exchange. This was the basic tenor of the final workshop of the BMFTR-funded “Bavarian Centre for Peace and Conflict Research: Interpretation Battles in Transition” (BZeFK), which focused on the diverse experiences, challenges and future prospects of transfer in the field of peace and conflict research. Around 30 practitioners, scientists and politicians discussed the cooperation of those involved in transfer, as well as suitable formats and institutions for making scientific expertise relevant and available to society. Concrete impetus for this was provided, among other things, by a keynote speech by Prof. Dr. Sebastian Büttner (Transfer Unit Science Communication at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities), in which he examined the concept of transfer from the perspective of science research.

It became clear in the first panel of the workshop that transfer is not a one-way street. Representatives from politics and civil society formulated key expectations of science and transfer. One participant from the field summed it up for the scientists present: ‘Without us, you would be lost.’ From a practical perspective, successful transfer requires academia to know what needs exist on the ground, how knowledge needs to be processed, and which forms of exchange are truly productive.

The example projects from the BZeFK research network itself demonstrated how diverse transfer can be: artistic interventions on the culture of remembrance and an exhibition designed in collaboration with students were presented. It was precisely where experimentation took place that productive tensions and new forms of cooperation and transfer emerged. Subsequently, the roundtable on struggles for interpretation made it clear that transfer is always accompanied by debates about the meaning and social relevance of knowledge – and is thus itself part of the conflicts that are examined in peace and conflict research.
The institutional level also plays a central role in transfer: representatives of the Peace Academy Rhineland-Palatinate, the Bavarian Science Alliance for Peace, Conflict and Security Research, the Transfer Centre for Peace in Augsburg and the TraCe and BZeFK research networks reported on the transfer structures that have been established to reach specific fields of practice with specific knowledge.

However, the discussion of transfer did not stop at practical examples. Limited resources, differing logics of science and practice, and the desire for measurable impact represent key challenges. It was precisely where different perspectives collided that the liveliest discussions arose – beyond the often-drawn boundary between science and practice: Is scientific engagement with peace and conflict even conceivable without transfer? What normative positions are associated with transfer? And to what extent are the respective perspectives shaped by disciplinary considerations?
The workshop deliberately ended on an open note with a panel discussion on questions, topics and ideas for future cooperation and further formats for exchange. The participants thus left with new questions, but also with new insights and the prospect of more transfer. The ‘Science and Practice’ working group of the Working Group for Peace and Conflict Research (AFK) is available for the next coordination steps.