Dr. Elisabeth Zschache, philosopher and trainer in scientific ethics, discusses power relations in science: who gains access, whose topics are promoted, and how dependencies, hierarchies, and precarious employment shape everyday research life. In this conversation, she explains why structural changes can only succeed if scientists organize themselves and reflect on privileges.

Audio

Highlights

„Overall, these hierarchies need to be addressed. Universities and colleges are simply very hierarchical systems. We know that hierarchical systems are very susceptible to abuse of power on so many levels. And the problem becomes even more acute when the institution fails to address it.“

– Dr. Elisabeth Zschache, trainer in scientific ethics

Transcript

Intro

Welcome to the DRS Podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. My name is Marlies Klamt, and today I am pleased to focus on a topic that is still too rarely discussed openly in academia.
When people talk about abuse of power in academia, many think of very personal experiences, sexual violence, racism, or the discrimination of people who have less influence within university structures. And these experiences certainly deserve attention and reappraisal.
At the same time, however, it is also worth looking at the structures that make such dynamics possible in the first place. Power relations also manifest themselves on another level. In the question of who has access to science in the first place, which topics are considered relevant, and which knowledge is heard and which is not. Today, I would like to talk to Dr. Elisabeth Zschache about power in the academic system, about privileges, about accessibility, and about what needs to change to make science more open, diverse, and equitable.

Interview

Elisabeth, tell us a little bit about yourself. In what context do you deal with issues of access, privilege, and the selection of research topics in science?

Yes, gladly. Hello from me too, and thank you for the invitation. I am a philosopher by training, so to speak, based on my academic background. I also have a doctorate in this field. This gives me an insight into ethical issues that are part of practical philosophy. And with that, I also have an insight into scientific ethics, which I believe is fundamentally a very questioning and analytical attitude.

I no longer work in science, but am self-employed in the fields of moderation, process facilitation, and educational work. As part of this work, I teach courses on scientific ethics and good scientific practice. In my work, I also deal a lot with power relations, so to speak. I would say that these things come together in my courses and in my examination of scientific ethics. So my view of good scientific practice is not only shaped by what people often associate with it: Is animal testing okay or not? That is also a power-critical question. But I am also very interested in what power relations actually exist in science. In which areas do they exist everywhere? And what does that actually mean for our scientific practice and for good scientific practice?

Thank you very much for introducing yourself. Let’s dive right into the topic. When we talk about power in science, it starts with the question of who actually has access to the academic world and research. What barriers do you see for people who want to go into science? Or maybe they don’t want to go into science at all because they don’t have the desire to do so. But I’m thinking now of social and cultural barriers, as well as physical and financial ones.

Yes, everything you mention plays a role. We see this time and again when we talk about Germany. When it comes to education, empirical evidence repeatedly shows that educational success—if you want to call it that—and access to education depend heavily on the socioeconomic background of the parents. In short, it depends on how much money the parents have at their disposal. This means that the question of class background, the question of how much financial capital I have in the background, for example, but perhaps also how much cultural and social capital is in the background, plays a huge role.

And when you talk to people who describe themselves as first-gen, for example, meaning they are the first in their families to attend university, you realize what a big issue this is for people. And this is not an individual issue, but it is still the case that most people who attend universities and colleges come from academic families. And for individuals and students or even doctoral candidates for whom this is not the case, who naturally have to overcome much greater hurdles, it is much more difficult.

A colleague once told me—we were at a conference, a conference for political educators, but it took place at a university—and we were sitting there together at lunch and my colleague said to me: “Tell me, do you also feel a bit disoriented in places like universities and colleges, not really knowing where you’re allowed to go, how you should behave, and so on?”

I don’t feel that way. I come from an academic family. But my colleague obviously did. And I think that shows, on a very basic level, what a difference it makes: Where do I come from, did I grow up in these structures? Do I know how to navigate the library? Do I have a sense of belonging, of “I belong here”?

And that’s just one example of what class background can mean. We could also talk about—you mentioned it—people with disabilities. We’re talking about looking at how many universities and colleges are somehow—well, we can’t really talk about barrier-free—at least barrier-reduced.

What kind of support is there in the education system before college and university to enable people with certain disabilities to graduate from school, which would allow them to study and maybe even get a doctorate?

You just mentioned the topic of barrier-free universities. Could you elaborate on that a little more? I’m sure it’s not just about ramps so that people in wheelchairs can access buildings, but I imagine there’s a lot more to it than that. Could you elaborate on that a little more?

It’s not just about ramps and wheelchair-accessible entrances, but also, of course. What are the paths like? Is it possible to get there with a wheelchair or even with crutches?

I’m also thinking about things like, for example, for deaf people: what about sign language lectures? Do they even exist?

I’m thinking of people—not just those with physical disabilities, but perhaps other types of disabilities as well—for example, neurodivergent people, i.e., people with ADHD or autism. Are there any options for listening to lectures online or live, for example?

So perhaps a practical example that would be relatively easy to implement: Why are lectures still held exclusively in person in many places? What is the reason for this? And why is this not made possible? This is a format where one would think it would be very easy to run online in parallel. Why can’t people follow it from home or other locations, for example?

And this is not just an issue for people with disabilities or certain disabilities, by the way. It is also an issue for people who have care responsibilities, such as students/doctoral researchers with children, for whom certain lecture and seminar times are a huge challenge to integrate into their everyday lives. For them, listening to a 90-minute lecture while doing the laundry in the evening would, of course, be a possible solution.

Yes, that means we can definitely say that there is very unequal access to the academic world, to higher education in general, for different groups. But even for those who do have access, what and how research is conducted is also crucial. And I’d like to talk to you a little bit about that next. Which research is considered important and which is considered less important, because that also says a lot about power relations.

Who ultimately decides what is, in quotation marks, a valuable or interesting research topic? So when we think about research work or projects, not only by doctoral candidates, but also by students and beyond.

I don’t think there’s a simple answer to that question. And the answers are also linked to what we just discussed: the question of access. If certain individuals and groups of people don’t even have access to higher education and science in the first place, then of course their topics, their methods, and their approaches are not represented.

And I think this is very clear in some areas. For example, ableism research, i.e., research on disability, is something that simply does not happen very often. For me, this is a very good example of what this means.

Furthermore, when it comes to topics like this, as well as the choice of methods and everything else, I think that power relations in science become very visible. Because, of course, the question is: Who has access to it in the first place? But then there is also the question: What research is funded? In these areas, we also have to ask: Where does the money for scientific research come from and how do funders influence it? How is this perhaps intertwined with politics?

I can perhaps illustrate this with two examples:

Firstly, we have… Well, in the USA we are currently experiencing this with the current administration and so on. And we are seeing, for example, that chairs for gender studies are being abolished. And this entire subject is also being devalued, at the very least, and classified as irrelevant. And it also has something to do with whether funds are flowing in and so on. That would be one example.

Another is that right now… In Brandenburg, the AfD—which is represented in the state parliament—submitted a motion (which did not pass) to withdraw basic funding from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. They didn’t get it through, but I think it’s a very good example of how, depending on who is in power politically, there are different interests in terms of what research is classified as fundable and relevant.

When we’re talking about third-party funding, we can also look at which subjects actually receive third-party funding and how. In other words, which subjects receive funding easily because the knowledge generated from them is easily exploitable? I am thinking primarily of technical subjects. And in which subjects—philosophy, for example, is one of them—is the added value perhaps not so easy to grasp, making it much more difficult to obtain third-party funding? At the same time, when we talk about third-party funding, we might think, “Okay, one subject is then less well funded than another.” On the other hand, of course, there is always the question: if the money comes from a specific source, what does that actually mean in terms of dependence on the donor and the donor’s influence on research?

So it’s complex, to say the least, I would say.

That sounds very complex. So we can conclude that the decision about what is considered relevant does not depend solely on scientific criteria, but also on political interests and, if I understood correctly, economic interests, right?

Yes, I would say so. And I don’t know if that’s necessarily a bad thing, so to speak. It can be incredibly morally charged. The challenge, the problem I see with it, is of course that it’s often not always transparent or visible.

So the question is, where is this actually being negotiated? How do we deal with it? Are individual scientists left alone with these issues, or are there also common places to negotiate them?

Because this touches on such deeply rooted ideals of science: science as an independent practice, as an objective practice. We have to ask ourselves what this actually means, given that some groups of people have no access to it and therefore certain topics are not addressed. That there may also be groups that influence research in terms of content and methodology. What does that do to these fundamentals?

How do you think the whole process could be made more transparent? How could we have an open discussion about accessibility, but also about how research funding is allocated?

Well, I don’t think there’s a simple recipe for easy solutions here either. There’s always a great desire for one. When I teach my courses, I sometimes notice a sense of disillusionment when I don’t conclude by saying: “And these are the five steps, and if we follow them, we will all be doing super ethical, flawless research and won’t have to concern ourselves further with the topic of scientific ethics and good scientific practice.”

I believe that the first step is actually to “talk about it.” And to take a look at the power relations and hierarchies that exist. And that happens very little. At colleges and universities, the opposite often happens: namely, that people act as if it were a space with at least a low level of hierarchy and as if power relations were not so relevant. And as a result, structures of dependency cannot be discussed or addressed at all. That’s where the problem begins. We definitely need more places where this can be discussed. Where we look at: What is science?

It must be said that this has been increasing in recent years, I would say. In the last two or three years, I have received an increasing number of requests for courses on good scientific practice, where the clients explicitly want the focus to be on power relations. I experience this especially in departments where the subject matter deals with power relations.

I have observed that researchers are grappling with the question: As a white person from the Global North, am I actually permitted to conduct research on topics that affect the Global South? In other words, as a white person who, in my case, now lives in Leipzig, am I permitted to conduct research on indigenous populations in South America? And what legitimizes this type of research, given that there is a global power relationship between the groups? And against the backdrop that, if we were to turn it around, we would probably very rarely have a case of indigenous people from South America researching white people in Germany. And I think that … Just the fact that researchers are starting to ask themselves this question and discuss it with colleagues is definitely a step in the right direction.

I believe we must continue to ask ourselves: What research should be funded? So the question of funding is, I believe, an important one. And how can this be done transparently? In a way, the underlying question is always how much money it is worth to us as a society, how much it is worth to us as a state, to invest in certain types of research and thus make it at least somewhat independent of economic interests.

And then, of course, there is the whole issue we discussed at the beginning: namely, the question of access. How can this be improved? Yes, I think part of it starts before college and university, namely by looking at the education system. And, of course, different people will give different answers to that.

I tend to say that we need to address the highly selective education system we have in Germany. This means that we select children and young people relatively early on—compared to other countries—and it starts with certain children going to grammar school, people with disabilities going to special schools, and so on. So that’s where the question of access begins, and it continues from there.

I also have another example of access that I think illustrates quite well how certain support measures can be effective. It concerns the issue of gender relations in science.

In recent years, probably in the last ten years, I would say, maybe even fifteen or twenty, there has been a lot of support for women, as I would call it, at universities, both among students and doctoral candidates. As a result, many more women are earning doctorates today than ten years ago. All these programs to promote women’s doctoral studies are working, as you can see. But what we also see is that these programs are specifically for the doctoral phase and then stop. And that means that if you look at this leaky pipeline, as it is called, there is a break after the doctorate; that the ratio of – if you want to think in terms of a binary gender ratio – in the case of women, changes significantly in the postdoctoral phase at the latest. And that in turn shows that support programs can also be a way of responding to different approaches to science.

This means that we could conclude that support programs work, but they must not stop at any stage; they must continue. And perhaps they should not focus on just one group, but also take into account the many other groups that you mentioned earlier and that we will certainly talk about in a moment, in order to ensure that existing inequalities are, if not eliminated, at least gradually reduced, and that access is also made possible for other groups that do not currently have it.

Hm, yes.

You just mentioned… The example you gave: As a white person, am I allowed to conduct research in the Global South? Let’s talk about that a little more. How can researchers ensure that they are not talking about people, but with them, so that they are perhaps also actively involved in research processes?

Well, I don’t know if they can guarantee that. I think it’s a legitimate demand. I just don’t know if it will work 100 percent. In the sense that it will still be talking about people. And at the same time, of course, there are also approaches in participatory research that involve the groups of people being researched in such a way that the research is conducted with them. In ethnology and anthropology, for example, a lot has happened in this area, at least in some areas. It’s a field of science, or a branch of science, that has dealt extensively with this issue in recent years, and methods have also changed.

Of course, this often leads to new problems. So what I meant by that is that it is an understandable desire to say: I want research that is reasonably free of problems. The reality is that this does not exist. There is no point at which we are done dealing with power relations.

And by these new problems, I mean things like this: when researchers work with marginalized groups, for example, and involve them in their research, the question quickly arises: should we compensate these groups, these people with whom we are conducting research and whose knowledge we are currently using? Should they receive money for their participation? Should they receive some other form of compensation? Is that okay? How does that affect motivation? What ethical implications does that have?

That’s what I mean, new questions and challenges and problems arise, and maybe that’s not a bad thing. Perhaps that’s also what science and research are all about, constantly asking these questions, because they are… In a way, you could say that they are fundamental questions underlying research, namely, how does the framework in which I conduct research affect the results I obtain?

Yes, that’s a very interesting point, and I also think that it’s a process and that you have to keep going back and reflecting on whether what you’re doing is appropriate or not, whether there are better ways of doing things, what works and what doesn’t. The fact is that in scientific contexts, it is still primarily people in privileged positions—i.e., mostly white, male individuals without disabilities from academically privileged backgrounds who are not affected by racism—who have the power to make decisions and thus often reproduce the structures from which they themselves benefit. How do you think the system can change under such conditions? How great is the desire for change when those who have the power to make decisions often benefit from the system?

Yes, I always think the question is who can initiate change. Most of the time, it’s the people you just described, those who are currently in positions of power, who aren’t the ones most interested in changing the situation, because that would probably mean they would have to share power if they changed the balance of power.

That means I don’t think it helps to wait to gain power; instead, it’s about taking power. It’s a kind of, I’ll call it self-empowerment. It’s a struggle for… Yes, I would actually call it a struggle.

And I always say in my courses that one key point that we find very difficult to learn, but which is very crucial, is organization. In other words, organizing with other people to fight for more rights and more influence. No one can take these issues of change and power relations off our hands. But what I always do is ask my doctoral students in my courses, “Who among you is actually in a union?” And very few are. I find that interesting.

Trade unions are, of course, a very basic way for employees to organize themselves. And at least some of the doctoral candidates also have positions at the university. Trade unions are precisely the kind of organizations that work to improve employment conditions at universities, for example. We haven’t talked about this yet, but just as a side note… Starting with the whole issue of precarious employment for academic staff at universities, where people have contracts for six months or so.

That’s right, I think it’s about organizing. And that, in turn, is something that is of course very difficult, especially in the higher education system, because it is so strongly geared towards individualization. We have a system that is so strongly focused on individual careers. Where it is somehow clear that if I want to stay in academia in the long term, the goal must be a professorship, because before that there is somehow nothing that is designed to be a permanent position. To get there, I have to fight my way through, in some way. This means that we learn to promote our individual careers. A doctorate is also a very individual project, or is designed to be so. Authorship, even if it is shared authorship: in the end, it’s about who is the first author and things like that.

So there is… this system is very much geared towards the individual. That makes it difficult, to say the least, to organize collectively and show solidarity with groups and people who may be worse off. But I think that’s the way forward: organizing, creating places for exchange among peers. Organizing in initiatives that are committed to this cause: for example, in unions, in doctoral student representatives (another place), in any kind of group.

I always say: folks, get organized!

Can you think of any alternatives to the individualistic scientific system, or do you perhaps even know of any?

I can definitely imagine that. Interestingly, this ideal of collaborative work also exists in science. And it does happen, to some extent, in working groups: data is exchanged, people work together on a project. That happens. The only question is always what ends up on the paper and so on. But I can imagine it, and I think many people would enjoy working with others more.

And I found it quite interesting, I was talking to a friend who left academia after completing his doctorate, who does AI research, and went into the private sector. That’s also a special field. In AI research, the most crucial research apparently takes place in the private sector, or so I’ve been told. And he said that in the publications of the company he works for—of course, there’s a list of the people involved somewhere—but at the top it says the name of the company or the working group, not the individual. This is just one example of how things can be done differently. Of course, I think that in terms of visibility, how it is presented as a joint achievement, a joint success, is very different from when there is a list that focuses on who is at the top and who are the first authors. Because that is the decisive factor in getting a certain position.

Yes, thank you for that example. Let’s return to the point you just made about organization. You were referring primarily to the people sitting in your workshop, for example. But also to individuals who are able to organize themselves or join unions.

If we now turn our attention back to the universities themselves, what structural levers can universities or funding institutions use to enable greater diversity and more equitable access? And in such a way that real change takes place and diversity is not just promoted externally, but that the decision-making structures and power relations ultimately remain the same.

So I believe there are levers in various places, which of course have varying degrees of impact. I think one area is really important—and universities may not be able to achieve this on their own, but they can certainly work towards it—and that is the whole issue of precarious employment conditions. But there is a different kind of security and thus also a different kind of freedom for research and for certain topics when I know that my job is not just for six months and I don’t have to worry about finding new funding every six months, but that I am secure for the next five years, at least. That would be one point, for example.

Then I find the whole question of: How does leadership actually take place? How are leadership positions filled and how are they, let’s call it, trained? I think that’s also a very relevant question for colleges and universities.

Because these professorships are such specialized positions. The reality is still that professorships are often awarded for, let’s say, outstanding research—in the best case scenario. Certainly also based on networks and contacts and so on. Teaching may be playing an increasingly important role, but I think it’s very clear which people who have a professorship have undergone further training in leadership. And these people are all bosses too, and the way they lead shapes their work areas and the university. I think there is definitely a need for improvement here.

So, if we talk again about this question of power relations in the field of research topics: How does the working group, the people in the department, deal with these issues? Well, there are now departments in certain subjects that are definitely addressing this issue. They get together and say: We’re going to engage in a power-critical process here, where we look at how we actually reproduce power relations with our research and how this can be done differently. There are requests for this. Interestingly, the impetus for this often comes from doctoral students, not necessarily from professors.

And I believe that, overall, we need to address these hierarchies. Universities and colleges are simply very hierarchical systems. We know that hierarchical systems are very susceptible to abuse of power on so many levels. And the problem becomes even more acute when the institution fails to address it. In other words, I believe we need places where this issue is addressed.

And I know that these are not answers that make you think, “Oh, we’ll do that and then tomorrow somehow… everything will be better.”

That’s a real shame. I can only describe impulses for processes and I have to say: I don’t have all the answers either. These are answers that we have to find together as a scientific community. And I think an underlying question is: “How do I, how do we use our power as researchers?”

And other participants [in the system] should ask themselves the same question.

Yes, that’s a very important question, Elisabeth.

And with that, we’re coming to the end of our fascinating conversation. Is there anything else on the subject of power relations and accessibility that’s particularly important to you, that we haven’t touched on today? Or was that your final word?

I have perhaps two more things to say.

One thing I would like to address, because we haven’t discussed it in depth yet and it is often overlooked, is how global power relations are reflected at the university. One question I find interesting is: Why do people from other countries in the Global South want to do research in Europe, even under poor conditions? And I believe that global power relations are reflected in this, because European research institutions, for example, may have such a high status that people are willing to come here to do research, even under such poor working conditions.

By poor working conditions, I mean things like people who come to Europe to conduct research—from the Global South, for example—and find themselves heavily dependent on visas. For these groups of people, the issue of precarious working conditions is even more acute because they often need a job in order to extend their visas. But if their job ends and no one is working to get it extended or to find funding, then their visa suddenly expires and they can’t finish their research here. Yes, and I really wanted to bring that up again because I think it’s an issue that is often overlooked. In a way, the researchers who are affected by this are left to deal with it on their own.

And the other thing is, what I… what perhaps also became clear from that last question… We are often both, we have positions of power and we have positions of powerlessness. And I think we need to talk about both and reflect on both.

So, for example, as a doctoral candidate, I am in a position of powerlessness for various reasons. But I also have power and influence because, as a doctoral candidate, I also teach or supervise people. And there I can also see how I actually deal with access in this position; that is, which topics are discussed in my seminars. How do I select literature? Which topics come up?

These are also opportunities to exert influence. And then I would say that we… many of us often hold both positions within ourselves.

Yes, definitely. Thank you for those two important additions. Thank you for the conversation, for the many insights and ideas. I really hope that they will encourage the people listening to this podcast to think a little more about how power and responsibility in science can perhaps be exercised more consciously. Thank you very much for your time.

Yes, thank you for the interview.

Outro

That was Dr. Elisabeth Zschache talking about power, responsibility, and change in science, here on the DRS podcast of Freie Universität Berlin.

What I take away from this conversation is that change does not happen by itself, but begins where people are willing to question structures and reflect on their own role in them.

Thank you for listening, and if the conversation has inspired you to think further or discuss further, that is exactly the goal of this podcast. Feel free to listen to the other interview with Dr. Elisabeth Zschache [coming soon], which deals with power relations in doctoral supervision.

I’m Dr. Marlies Klamt, and I wish you a wonderful day. See you next time here on the Dahlem Research School podcast.

This interview was conducted by our trainer and co-host of our podcast Dr. Marlies Klamt.