Dr. Cornelia Schendzielorz | Associated Researcher

The State, Political Norms and Political Conflicts
Centre Marc Bloch, Friedrichstraße 191, D-10117 Berlin
Email: schendzielorz  ( at )  cmb.hu-berlin.de Tel: 030 2093666-27

Home Institution : Centre Marc Bloch, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW) | Position : Associated Researcher at Centre Marc Bloch | Disciplines : Sociology |

Biography

Since 11/2020: Postdoctoral Researcher at the Robert K. Merton Center for Science Studies at  Humboldt Universität zu Berlin.

Since 11/2019: Postdoctoral Researcher at the German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies. Principal Investigator in the Project: Phoenix - Authorship Revised

12/2018 - 09/2020: Postdoctoral Researcher at the Institute for Social Sciences at Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Science Studies, Prof. Martin Reinhart and Prof. Stefan Hornbostel.

Since 05/2017: Postdoctoral Researcher in the group “Valuation Practices in Science” at the German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies.

09/2016 – 05/2017: Postdoctoral Researcher in the Cluster of Excellence in the Interdisciplinary Laboratory Image Knowledge Gestaltung, priority area “Architectures of Knowledge” at the Humboldt University Berlin

10/2012 – 06/2016: Doctoral Researcher at the Center Marc Bloch Berlin, Franco-German Research Centre for the Social Science. Dissertation “Vocational Soft Skill Trainings: Negotiation Spaces of socially acceptable subjectivities”, supervisors: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Bröckling and Prof. Dr. Tanja Bogusz

01/2015 – 05/2015: Researcher at the Department of sociological contemporary diagnosis (Prof. Uwe Vormbusch) at the Institute of Sociology at University at Hagen. Preliminary study for the project “Taxonomy of the self”

2012: Assistant in the project „Online Dating. Mediated Communication between Romantic Love and Economic Rationalization“, in cooperation with the University of Lausanne and the Institute for Social Research at Goethe University Frankfurt am Main

2009 - 2011: Researcher at the Institute for Social Research at Goethe University Frankfurt am Main in the franco-german project (German Research Foundation/French National Research Agency) „Bewährungsprobe durch das Fernsehen. Eine Studie über die medialen Formen der Anerkennung“, directed by Prof. Axel Honneth and Dr. Olivier Voirol.

2009: Master (Magister Artium) in Sociology and Contemporary History at the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg i. Brsg.

Scholarship

Scholarship from the ministery of education and research

 

Researchtopic

Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation, Science Studies Practice Theory, Sociology of Science, Sociology of Education, Sociology of Work and Labour, Qualitative Research Methods, Ethnography

 

Summary of thesis

The target of my research project is to study how subjectivation takes place in the context of work and education. My empirical focus is on vocational training in soft skill that treat challenges like conflict management, moderation of debates, teambuilding, self organisation. I suppose that subjectivation is put into effect in these trainings, by the attempt to impact on the behavior of adults in order to improve the atmosphere in the project team and the productivity in dealing with conflicts and the efficiency of labour. The sociological, educational, and philosophical literature about forms and figures of subjectivation and subjectivity serves me to analyse how the participants of vocational training in soft skills are interpellated as subjects. Moreover I want to explore in an empirical field investigation how these participants deal with the specific interpellation, how they rule their selves, how they act on their selves. The different ways to handle this interpellation should be developed as modes how to describe and edit the self by ethnographic field work and semi structured guide lined interviews. I will take part in 4-6 training in soft skills and 1-3 month later run interview with Teamers and participants of these training.
 

Projects

Evaluation in crisis?

Exploration of a systemic approach for the study of science

Internal and external regulation of scientific work considerably relies on evaluation procedures in which experts assess the quality of scientific research in the so-called peer review. However, these processes are subject to a variety of criticism, ranging from overload to particularism, conservatism and inefficiency. Nonetheless, peer review procedures remain the commonly accepted gold standard to judge scientific quality.

This project addresses the diversity of evaluation and reviewing procedures that mark the research system on various levels and focusses on their challenges as well as their dilemmas. On the basis of empiric case studies we conduct a praxeological analysis of evaluation practices in order to seize the conception as well as execution of their particular procedural steps. Crucial references are the broad research on peer review within science studies and the emerging current works in the Sociology of valuation and various case studies carried out by the DZHW and the iFQ (http://www.dzhw.eu/abteilungen/system/projekte). The project's objective is to systematically analyze the variety of peer review procedures in science in order to identify parameters for a differentiation and a typology of evaluation procedures. In a comparative analysis of different evaluation procedures we fathom systematic connections between different procedural steps and alignments of valuation elements, which are crucial for a proper functioning of the scientific peer review system.

Authorship revised

The project investigates the theory and practice of scientific authorship in the 21st century. Beliefs about authorship are currently subject to a profound change, especially with regard to changed research constellations and collaborative processes in science which shape the conditions of knowledge production. This change can be seen, for example, in the cross-disciplinary increase of co-authorship and mass collaborations when, in physics (for instance of gravitational wave) more than 1000 people are listed as authors in one article. Together with the increasing differentiation of the division of labour in material- and technology-intensive research fields such as life sciences, this is prompting a debate on how the various activities of those involved can be adequately acknowledged in the publications.

In addition to publishing authorship policies, journals, publishers and publication platforms are also testing contribution classifications, which are intended to identify specific contributions to a paper or operate by mentioning names in the acknowledgements. In the course of a progressively differentiated division of labour, the act of writing is sometimes not only divided very differently among co-authors, but in some research fields also delegated to professionalized "scientific writers", who are usually not named as authors. The latter is diametrically opposed to the classical concept of the unity of author and text. These findings indicate that the importance attached to writing varies drastically between disciplines. They also raise questions about the handling of so-called "ghost authors", the partially practiced "guest-" and "gift-authorships" or "honorary authorship".

The aim of the project is to contribute to the empirical research of authorship. Quantitative and qualitative empirical data will be used to investigate how the changed and discipline-specific conditions for the production of scientific knowledge are reflected in authorship: What significance is assigned to authorship in each case? How is authorship negotiated? And what conflicts may be associated with it?

The investigation is complemented by algorithmic authorship analyses by our partners in Weimar (Webis) and Leipzig (Temir) https://webis.de/research/science-studies.html. These techniques make it possible to capture writing styles and inflationary authorship by means of author profiling and analysis of text reuses.

For further information see: https://www.dzhw.eu/en/forschung/projekt?pr_id=658

Diversity and Adjustability of Peer Review - on the Metastability of Peer Review Formats

Science has to rely on review processes in which the quality of scientific work is evaluated. For processes of both internal and external regulation of science, this is usually done by peer review procedures. Although peer review is omnipresent as an instrument of scientific quality assurance, it has always been controversial. Complaints include susceptibility to error, inefficiency, conservatism, discrimination based on gender, geographical origin or institutional affiliation, which often results in diagnoses of a general crisis and a fundamental overload of the procedures and the involved people. Regarding peer review the overload is addressed in two ways: On the one hand, through procedural innovations, such as lotteries, on the other hand, through a formalization of the procedures, e.g. informed peer review.

Against this background, the project is interested in specific peer review formats and their advantages and disadvantages not as individual cases, but as components of a more comprehensive system of mechanisms to govern science. The central question is how peer review formats contribute to the quality, legitimacy, and social relevance as well as significance of science through their procedures, criteria and use cases. This will be examined by means of three case studies, in which procedural innovation and formalization of peer review become apparent in different ways. The selection of cases is based on a heuristic distinguishing between evaluation object, evaluation criteria and evaluation procedure (Krüger/Reinhart 2017).

These three aspects will be addressed in case studies:

- New assessment procedure: Lotteries in research funding

- New evaluation criterion: "Societal impact" in the British Research Excellence Framework

- Changing object of evaluation: university networks in the German and French Excellence Initiative.

Various elements of the peer review formats are differentiated with regard to their function for quality assurance. The study aims to develop a typology of peer review formats by means of a comparative process analysis. Thereby, we want to determine the potential of the instruments, formalization efforts and innovations currently tested in peer review to ensure good scientific practice.

For further information see: https://www.intzent.hu-berlin.de/de/rmz/forschungsaktivitaeten/diversitaet-und-anpassungsfaehigkeit-des-peer-review

Organisation of Events

April/Mai 2020: Ko-Organisation der Tagung "Reflexivity reloaded. Dimensions of Reflexivity in the Relationship of Science and Society" finanziert durch die Berlin University Alliance. (mit Séverine Marguin (TU), Antje Kahl (FU), Tim Flink (HU), Juliane Heinrich (TU), Ajit Singh (Erkner), Juliane Haus (WZB))

05/2015 - 07/2016 Co-organization of Research Colloquium (Séminaire de Recherche) of Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin

12-13 March 2015: "Practices of subjectivation in continuing vocational training - genealogy - discourse - dispositive", German-French Young Forum at the Centre Marc Bloch in cooperation with the Alice Salomon Hochschule Berlin. (together with Lisa-Marian Schmidt and Julien Acquatella)

Miscellaneous

Member of the Robert K. Merton Center for Science Studies, Interdisciplinary Center at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

Member of the "Conseil de laboratoire" of Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin

Member of the "Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie"

Member of DGS Sektion "Bildung und Erziehung"

Member of DGS Sektion "Arbeits- und Industrie Soziologie"

Member of the French Association of Sociology

Activities

Presentations (selection)

08/2020: New Multiples in STI policy? Understanding the entanglement of concepts, practices and identities in STI policy. (mit Tim Flink, Martin Reinhart und Barbara Hendriks) Panel auf der EASST/4S 2020 Locating and Timing Matters: Significance and agency of STS in emerging worlds, 18.8.-21.08.2020, Prag (virtuell), Tschechien.

08/2020: Invisible practices in translational medicine: the case of clinician scientists (mit Barbara Hendriks und Martin Reinhart) Vortrag auf der EASST/4S 2020 Locating and Timing Matters: Significance and agency of STS in emerging worlds, 18.8.-21.08.2020, Prag (virtuell).

08/2020: How to allocate authorship? Tensions between research practice and editorial policies. (mit Felicitas Hesselmann) Vortrag auf der EASST/4S 2020 Locating and Timing Matters: Significance and agency of STS in emerging worlds, 18.8.-21.08.2020, Prag (virtuell).

08/2020: The ethnographers positionality vis-à-vis legitimate knowledge in science. (mit Séverine Marguin) Vortrag auf der EASST/4S 2020 Locating and Timing Matters: Significance and agency of STS in emerging worlds, 18.8.-21.08.2020, Prag (virtuell).

Schendzielorz, C. & Reinhart, M. (2019, September) “Knowing democracy through performing scientific self-governance” Vortrag auf der 4S 2019: Innovations, Interruptions, Regenerations, 04.09.2019-07.09.2019, New Orleans, USA.

Marguin, S. & Schendzielorz, C. (2019, August) « Une infrastructure de réfléxivité », Réseaux thématique « Science et technique en société »,  Vortrag auf dem 8ième congrès der Association francaise de sociologie : Classé, déclasse, reclasser, 27.08.2019 – 30.08.2019, Aix en Provence, France.

Heßelmann, F., & Schendzielorz, C. (2019, Mai).
Linking measurements and values in the process of knowledge production – Infrastructures of knowing in the creation of a scientific article. Vortrag auf der STS Graz, 6.-7. Mai 2019, Graz, Österreich.

Reinhart, M., & Schendzielorz, C. (2018, November).
Dispositifs of Transparency in Scientific Evaluation. The Publicity and Legibility of Peer Review. Workshop: The Role of Visibility in Academic Evaluation, DZHW & HU-Berlin, 15.-16.11.2018, Berlin.

Hendriks, B., Reinhart, M. & Schendzielorz, C. (2018, September).
Quantifizierungsdynamiken in wissenschaftlichen Bewertungsprozessen. Vortrag in der Adhoc-Gruppe zu „Grenzen der Quantifizierung in der Datengesellschaft“ auf dem 39. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, 24.-28.09.2018, Göttingen.

20.07.2018: Was this Review Helpful to You? Creation and Re-Creation of Value through Measurement (mit Felicitas Hesselmann). Vortrag in der Session “Theorizing Measures, Rankings and Metrics” auf dem XIX ISA World Congress of Sociology, 15.-21.07.2018, Toronto, Kanada.

07.03.2018: Research on Peer Review – in search of a theoretical approach. (mit Martin Reinhart) Vortrag auf der internationalen Konferenz “PEERE international Conference on Peer Review“, 7.-9. März 2018, National Research Council, Rom, Italien.

2.03.2018: Organisationsinterne Verantwortungsdiffusion in der beruflichen Weiterbildung. Vortrag auf der internationalen Jahrestagung der Kommission Organisationspädagogik der DGfE „Organisation und Verantwortung“, 1. - 2. März 2018, Pädagogische Hochschule Oberösterreich, Linz, Österreich.

10.07.2017: Berufliche Soft Skill Trainings. Aushandlungsraum einer sozial akzeptablen Subjektivität,. Vortrag im Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin.

Teaching

SS 2020: Scientific authorship revised. Institute for Social Sciences at the Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Science Studies (Master's Seminar)

WS 2019/2020: What does science argue about? (with Dr. Jens Ambrasat), Institute for Social Sciences at the Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Science Studies (Master's Seminar)

SS 2019: Evaluation of Research (with Prof. Dr. Hornbostel), Institute for Social Sciences at the Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Science Studies (Master's Seminar)

SS 2018: Introduction to Science Policy (with Dr. Tim Flink), Institute for Social Sciences at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Science Studies (Masters Seminar)

WS 2014/2015: Basic Seminar Sociological Theory, Institute for Social Sciences, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

WS 2013/2014: BA-Seminar, Institute for Social Sciences at the Humboldt University Berlin, "The Subject - an arrangement - programmes, discourses and practices of formation of subjects" (with Julien Acquatella)

Evaluation in crisis? Exploration of a systemic approach for the study of science

Internal and external regulation of scientific work considerably relies on evaluation procedures in which experts assess the quality of scientific research. The peer review system, the central mechanism of quality assurance of scientific work, is highly controversial. Complaints regarding work overload and corruption of the system as well as doubts concerning its effective operation, its proper functioning and its reliability are omnipresent in the discourse. Reproaches against peer review have been particularism, conservatism, proneness to error and inefficiency. Nonetheless, peer review procedures remain the commonly accepted gold standard to judge scientific quality. This project addresses the diversity of evaluation and reviewing procedures that mark the research system on various levels and focusses on their challenges as well as their dilemmas. On the basis of empiric case studies we conduct a praxeological analysis of evaluation practices in order to seize the conception as well as execution of their particular procedural steps. Crucial references are the broad research on peer review within science studies and the emerging current works in the Sociology of valuation. Furthermore, we follow up the various case studies carried out by the DZHW and the iFQ, concerning the evaluation of journal publications, of individual or collaborative grants as well as reviewing and assessment in the course of doctoral examination procedures and appointment procedures for professorships. The project hereby integrates into the research cluster “Evaluation Practices in Science and Higher Education” at the DZHW. The project's objective is to systematically analyze the variety of peer review procedures in science in order to identify parameters for a differentiation and a typology of evaluation procedures. In a comparative analysis the study focuses on the relation between different evaluation procedures in order to fathom systematic connections between different procedural steps and alignments of valuation elements, which are crucial for a proper functioning of the scientific peer review system.

Positionality Reloaded: Debating the Dimensions of Reflexivity in the Relationship Between Science and Society

September 30, 2021

Cornelia Schendzielorz , Séverine Marguin, Juliane Haus, Anna Juliane Heinrich, Antje Kahl, Ajit Singh

Sammelband
Historical Social Research
Edition: gesis Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften
Collection: Historical Social Research
ISBN: 0172-6404

It cannot be denied that reflexivity has become a must in social science methodological discourse in recent decades. The uses and functions of reflexivity in the research process have been well addressed historically, be it with regard to researchers’ subjectivity, their perspectivity shaped by social origin and biographical life path, or their possible asymmetrical power relations with investigated actors. Nevertheless, we see an urgent need to discuss these issues. We claim that the practice of reflexivity, seriously shaken by the current transformation of (the understandings of) academic knowledge production, has become a challenging duty to fulfill. There is no straight and easy answer to the big questions of “for whom” and “for what purpose” do we produce “what kind of” knowledge and “how.” Struggling for an appropriate positioning within global societal developments, we dedicate this special issue to the search for a critical, and the exploration of a lucid, (self-)reflection of academic research. In this respect, this special issue, Positionality Reloaded: Debating the Dimensions of Reflexivity in the Relationship Between Science and Society, sets out to explore how coexisting yet diverse conceptions of academic research and knowledge production can be reflexively considered and related to each other from an epistemological, ethico-normative, and ontological point of view.


Berufliche Soft Skill Trainings. Aushandlungsraum einer sozial akzeptablen Subjektivität

August 14, 2017

Cornelia Schendzielorz

Edition: Beltz Juventa Verlag
ISBN: 978-3-7799-3735-7

Cornelia Schendzielorz hat zwischen 2012 und 2016 im Fach Soziologie am Centre Marc Bloch promoviert. Das Ergebnis ihrer Arbeit ist unter dem Titel Berufliche Soft Skill Trainings im Beltz Juventa Verlag erschienen. Sie arbeitet zur Zeit als wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin am Deutschen Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung (DZHW) in Berlin.
 
Zum Inhalt:
Soft Skill Trainings indizieren die Hinwendung der beruflichen Weiterbildung zu einer „Arbeit am Selbst“, indem sie versuchen den Zugriff auf die eigenen soziopsycho-emotionalen Ressourcen zu aktivieren. Doch wie wird diese Selbstbearbeitung trainiert? Welche Technologien der Selbst- und Fremdführung kommen dabei zum Einsatz? An empirischen Fallbeispielen analysiert die Autorin, welche Selbstverhältnisse und Sozialitätskonzeptionen in Soft Skill Trainings präfiguriert werden, und erörtert, was in der Berufswelt ein sozial akzeptables Verhalten ausmacht.
 
Mehr Informationen finden Sie hier.

Publications

Hesselmann, F., Schendzielorz, C, Krüger, A. K. (i. Ersch): Sichtbarkeitskonstellationen im Journal Peer Review – Konsequenzen von In/Transparenz in wissenschaftlichen Bewertungsverfahren. in: Berli, Oliver / Schäfer, Hilmar / Nicolae, Stefan (Hg.): Kulturen der Bewertung.

Frisch, Thomas; Laser, Stefan; Matthäus, Sandra; Schendzielorz, Cornelia (2021): It’s worth the trouble. On valuation studies and climate change, in: economic sociology the european electronic newsletter: Climate change and contested (economic) futures, Volume 22, Nr. 2: 10-14. https://econsoc.mpifg.de/43390/03_Frisch-et-al_Econsoc-NL_22-2_March2021.pdf.

Martin Reinhart & Cornelia Schendzielorz (2020) The lottery in Babylon—On the role of chance in scientific success, Journal of Responsible Innovation, DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2020.1806429

Schendzielorz, C., & Reinhart, M. (2020). Die Regierung der Wissenschaft im Peer Review. der moderne Staat- Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 1/2020, 101-123. Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich. doi: 10.3224/dms.v13i1.10

Hendriks, B., Reinhart, M., Schendzielorz, S. (2019): „Keine Exzellenz ohne Mittelklasse!“ Kritik an Quantifizierungsdynamiken in Bewertungsprozessen aus dem Innern der Wissenschaft, eingereiche für DGS Kongressband "Komplexe Dynamiken Globaler und Lokaler Entwicklungen", https://publikationen.soziologie.de/index.php/kongressband_2018/article/view/1025/1288.

Hesselmann, F., & Schendzielorz, C. (2019). Evaluations as value-measurement links: Exploring metrics and meanings in science. In Brighenti, A.M., Theorising Measures, Rankings and Metrics, Special Issue for Social Science Information, pp: 282-300.

Hendriks, B., Schendzielorz, C., & Reinhart, M. (2018). Förderung und Evaluation der Forschung in den Lebenswissenschaften in der Schweiz – eine Interviewstudie. In: The growth of science: Auswirkungen für die Forschungsevaluation und -förderung in der Schweiz. Politische Analyse und Empfehlungen des Schweizerischen Wissenschaftsrates SWR. Empirische Untersuchung von B. Hendriks, M. Reinhart und C. Schendzielorz, Deutsches Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung (DZHW), Berlin. Politische Analyse 2/2018. Berlin: Schweizer Wissenschaftsrat. ISBN 978-3-906113-56-2

Schendzielorz, C., Hoffmeister, A., & Marguin (2018), S. Feldnotizen 2.0. Digitalität in der ethnographischen Beobachtungspraxis. Wie Digitalität die Geisteswissenschaften verändert. Neue Forschungsgegenstände und Methoden, Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften (ZfdG) (Sonderband 3)

Schendzielorz, Cornelia (i. Ersch.): Selbstpositivierung als Selbstverhältnis des optimierten Selbst?, In: Marcel Eulenbach; Thorsten Fuchs, Reihe: Übergangs- und Bewältigungsforschung,Weinheim, Beltz Juventa.

Schendzielorz, C., & Marguin, S. (2018). Der kollektive Künstler. In Thomas Alkemeyer. Ulrich Bröckling, Tobias Peter (Hrsg.), Jenseits der Person. Zur Subjektivierung von Kollektiven. Bielefeld: Transcript.

Schendzielorz, C. (2017). Berufliche Soft Skill Trainings: Aushandlungsraum einer sozial akzeptablen Subjektivität. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.

Schendzielorz, C., Schmidt, L., & Acquatella, J. (2016). Workshop-Bericht: Praktiken der Subjektivierung in der Bildungs-Arbeit. Genealogie - Diskurs - Dispositiv. Zeitschrift für Diskursforschung, 4. Jg, H. 2 196-201. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.

Schendzielorz, C. (2016). Rezension von Glauser, Laura (2016): Das Projekt des unternehmerischen Selbst. Eine Feldforschung in der Coachingzone. Bielefeld: Transcript.

Schendzielorz, Cornelia (2015): Subjektivierung in Soft Skill Trainings die performative Kraft des Wissens, In: Agnes Dietzen, Justin J. W. Powell, Anke Bahl, Lorenz Lassnigg (Hrsg.): Soziale Inwertsetzung von Wissen, Erfahrung und Kompetenz in der Berufsbildung, Reihe: Bildungssoziologische Beiträge, Weinheim, Beltz Juventa, S. 372-390.

Schendzielorz, Cornelia (2014)(mit Dr. Olivier Voirol): Gehaltloser Erfolg. Die Bewertungskultur der Ungewissheit in den Casting-Shows, In: Leviathan Sonderband 29, 2014, Denis Hänzi, Hildegard Matthies, Dagmar Simon (Hrsg.): Erfolg. Konstellationen und Paradoxien einer gesellschaftlichen Leitorientierung, S. 160-175.

Schendzielorz, Cornelia (2014) (mit Dr. Olivier Voirol): Verpflichtet auf Erfolg – verdammt zum Scheitern. Selbstbewertung in Casting-Shows, In:  René John, Antonia Langhof (Hrsg.): Scheitern – ein Desiderat der Moderne? Wiesbaden, Springer VS-Verlag, S. 25-46.

Schendzielorz C (2011) Anerkennung im Sprechen. Eine theoretische und empirische Analyse der sozialen Dimension des Sprechens. Frankfurt a. M. https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/data/149356.