E - D O K U M E N T I S J M Surveys and Reflexivity A Second-Order Analysis of the European Social Survey (ESS) Brina Malnar | Karl H. Müller With a Foreword by Max Kaase For Niko Toš, pioneer of social research in Slovenia, close friend, mentor, vir sapiens, on the occasion of his 81st birthday & for Sir Roger Jowell and Max Kaase, founding fathers and promoters of the European Social Survey (ESS) Surveys and Reflexivity A Second-Order Analysis of the European Social Survey (ESS) Brina Malnar | Karl H. Müller With a Foreword by Max Kaase E-DOKUMENTI SJM/Ljubljana, 2021 edition echoraum | Wien Brina Malnar/Karl H. Müller Surveys and Reflexivity A Second-Order Analysis of the European Social Survey (ESS) ISBN ISBN 978-3-901941-46-7 Edition Echoraum Wien, 2015 Vol. 5 of the Series: Observing Social Sciences Peer-Review: Prof. Zdravko Mlinar | Dr. Slavko Kurdija Layout: Werner Korn Text edition: Gertrud Hafner Figures and Graphs: Armin Reautschnig Cover: Section from “Netherlandish Proverbs” by Pieter Bruegel the Elder with Permission from the Gemäldegalerie (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin) First electronic edition Published by: Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede, IDV, CJMMK Kardeljeva ploščad 5, Ljubljana Book Series: E-Dokumenti SJM 4 Editor: Slavko Kurdija URL: https://knjigarna.fdv.si/ in www.cjm.si Kataložni zapis o publikaciji (CIP) pripravili v Narodni in univerzitetni knjižnici v Ljubljani COBISS.SI-ID 60046595 ISBN 978-961-235-968-3 (PDF) Table of Contents Acknowledgements 9 Foreword by Max Kaase 15 Abstracts 19 Part I: Fundamental Changes and Grand Challenges 23 1 The Contemporary Great Transformation of the Science System 29 1.1 The Open Science Horizons 1940–1960 31 1.2 The Great Transformation 1940–2015: The Shift from Science I to Science II 34 1.3 Science II and Shifts in Leading Fields 37 1.4 Science II as a Complexity Revolution 41 1.5 The Hidden Dimensions of Science II 42 2 A Scientific Revolution in Reflexivity 47 2.1 Major Changes in the Science System, 1950–2015 50 2.2 The Current Revolution in Science as a Silent Reflexivity Revolution 53 2.3 Scope of Second-Order Science 57 2.4 A General Methodology of Second-Order Science 59 2.5 Functions and Goals for Second-Order Science 60 2.6 The Current Complexity and Reflexivity Revolution as a Copernican Revolution 62 2.7 Outlooks 63 3 Three Grand Challenges for the European Social Survey (ESS) 65 3.1 The European Social Survey as a Science-Driven Success Story 67 3.2 Peaks of Perfection and Their Potential Threats 70 3.3 An Internal ESS-Challenge: Societal Changes and ESS-Monitoring Capabilities 72 3.4 The First Grand ESS-Challenge: ICT- Changes and New Data Infrastructures 74 3.5 The Second Grand ESS-Challenge: Science II and the Cognitive Neuro-Sciences 75 3.6 The Third Grand ESS-Challenge: The Combination of Internal and External Challenges 78 3.7 Outlooks 80 6 Table of Content Part II: An ESS-Analysis of ESS-Analyses 81 4 An Outline of Second-Order Survey Analyses 85 4.1 Two Roads to Second-Order Survey Analyses 87 4.2 Goals of Second-Order Survey Analyses 89 4.3 Re-Entry Operations into Survey-Inputs 90 4.4 Re-Entry Operations into Survey-Outputs 91 4.5 A Focus on Publications with ESS-Data: Towards a Second-Order ESS-Analysis of ESS-Analyses 93 5 A Second-Order ESS-Study of ESS-Studies: Empirical Results 95 5.1 Background, Definitions, Methods 97 5.2 The Mapping of ESS Scientific Outputs 100 6 A Deep Search for Second-Order Survey Analyses 169 6.1 A Second-Order ESS Study of ESS Studies: A Summary 171 6.2 A Deep Search for New Dimensions and Widening the Second-Order Database for ESS Analyses 172 6.3 Second-Order Analyses of the Internal Dynamics 176 6.4 An Extension of the Second-Order ESS Database with Multiple Surveys 177 6.5 Analyzing the Comparative Dynamics across Multiple Surveys 178 6.6 Combining Multiple Types of Comparative Survey Analyses 179 6.7 Second-Order Survey-Studies of Second-Order Survey-Studies 179 6.8 Outlooks 180 Part III: Meeting the Grand Challenges 181 7 Widening ESS ERIC across Three Levels 185 7.1 European Research Infrastructures as Organizations 187 7.2 Expanding ESS ERIC at the Zero-Order Level: New Data Modules 189 7.3 Expanding ESS ERIC at the Zero-Order Level: A Module for Complex Visualization of ESS Data 190 7.4 Expanding ESS ERIC at the First-Order Level: Building a Cognitive Science Module for Situated Cognition 202 7.5 Expanding ESS-ERIC at the Second-Order Level: Building an Online Second-Order ESS Monitoring-System 211 7.6 Outlooks 212 Table of Content 7 8 The Multiple Faces of Reflexive Survey Designs 215 8.1 Five Clusters of Reflexive Survey Designs 218 8.2 Reflexivity Cluster I: Survey Researchers and Their Operations 219 8.3 Reflexivity Cluster II: Reflexivity in Survey Building Blocks X 223 8.4 Reflexivity Cluster III: Survey Reflexivity in Societies or Multilevel Environments 223 8.5 Reflexivity Cluster IV: Survey Rules and Survey Rule Systems 224 8.6 Reflexivity Cluster V: Reflexive Relations between Survey Researchers, Building Blocks, Multi-Level Ensembles, and Rule Systems 225 8.7 Combining Reflexivity Types 225 8.8 Surveys, Endo-Mode, Recursion, and Eigenforms 226 8.9 Final Outlooks 228 Bibliography 231 Index 265 Acknowledgements Background European Social Survey (ESS) 4 6 5 3 8 2 1 7 Behind our inventions there is nothing, a void, which I call a profound ignorance. We do not even build on sand, but on an emptiness, a lack. Ranulph Glanville, The Black B∞x, Volume III The present volume is the result of a combination of two unrelated types of research domains which, so far, were not linked in any significant way. − The first field lies within the well-established world of comparative survey research which over the last two decades saw a massive expansion through the European Social Survey (ESS) which can be characterized as an international best practice example for data production in comparative surveys and as a huge success story in terms of resource mobilization, international participation and scientific productivity of journal articles based on ESS-data. − The second area is based on recent explorations into second-order science which to a very large extent are the result of big changes and transformations in the overall re-organization of the science system as a whole. The overall structure of the book which is reproduced in the diagram on the first page of this acknowledgement section shows three major parts, namely an initial background segment, the core section of the book with its emphasis on second-order ESS-analyses and, finally, a third part on the wider implications of the overall results in this volume for the future of the ESS-project and for reflexive research in general. − Part I as relevant theoretical background presents a short summary of major changes in the evolution of science and science landscapes and on the scope and dimensions of second-order science. Additionally, the first part poses three grand challenges for the European Social Survey (ESS). − Part II leads into the core of second-order analyses, with an initial section on second-order investigations for surveys, with a central part of empirical results of second-order ESS-analyses and with a final chapter on possible second-order explorations of the ESS. − Finally, Part III addresses the issue of meeting the grand challenges and of accommodating the results of the second-order ESS-analyses so far as well as the open horizons of reflexive research designs in survey research. Turning to our acknowledgements for the support of this publication we must refer, initially, to a single outstanding person who enabled the present volume in manifold ways. Over the years and decades Niko Toš became a very close friend 12 Surveys and Reflexivity: A Second-Order Analysis of the ESS with whom we produced a series of common book-projects on social research in Slovenia, on social science methodology or on societal evolution. At the end of the acknowledgements we provide a list of common book-projects which were completed over the last twenty years and which demonstrate the intensity of our co-operation. The present volume is dedicated as our present to Niko Toš on the occasion of his 81th birthday and we hope that we were able to deliver an innovative and scientifically interesting piece of research, which matches the multiple and sustainable achievements of Niko Toš for the rapid development of the social sciences in Slovenia. In terms of the production of this book, thanks go, as usual, to Gertrud Hafner who was responsible for the layout of the book, to the late Michael Eigner as graphical designer and to Werner Korn who still is able to cope with our book productions in meanwhile two book series, namely “Complexity, Design, Society” and “Observing Social Sciences”, within edition echoraum, his publishing company. Special thanks go to a small group of persons who contributed to this volume in tangible ways and mainly through discussions, dialogues, long talks and numerous glasses of light white wines. − The authors would like to thank the ESS director Rory Fitzgerald and the entire Core Scientific Team for having recognised the relevance of bibliographic monitoring for the ESS outreach strategy, its quality control and decision making processes. This way, ESS has become a pioneering example for the use of second-order analysis in the field of comparative survey research and its scientific management. − Ranulph Glanville (1946–2014) makes his impact on this volume through a series of short quotations from Volume III of his collection of articles under the unifying name of “The Black B∞x” (Glanville, 2009, 2012, 2014) Ranulph Glanville represented the avantgarde in thinking and living in circular formations which became also the basis for the building of second-order science. − Stuart A. Umpleby and Michael Lissack from the American Society for Cybernetics (ASC) as well as Alexander Riegler as editor of the journal Constructivist Foundations became very close al ies in promoting the agenda of second-order science through workshops, lectures, conferences and specisl journal issues (Riegler/Müller, 2014). They are our most important partners with respect to the diffusion support for second-order science. − Anton Amann made significant contributions on the relevance of second-order investigations in the social sciences and offered a series of stimulating discussions on standards of living and quality of life as second-order concepts. Acknowledgements 13 − Richard Költringer was a very important and close companion in his dual function as head of the national survey organization for the ESS in Austria and as a long-time friend and discussion partner on survey data, survey methodology, survey research and epistemology. − Finally, Rogers J. and E.J. Hol ingsworth were significant critical observers for us who played the role of an advocatus diaboli and who helped to sharpen the arguments in favor of second-order science and on the potential of second-order analyses. Last, and most important, the two authors must acknowledge themselves respectively for bringing together their expertise in two unrelated domains and to recombine them to a hopefully coherent and consistent publication. This volume is to our knowledge the first book on second-order survey analyses and we needed, thus, to navigate through uncharted waters with all the emotions and feelings of pioneers in new science landscapes. Of course, the reader and not the authors must and will decide whether this recombination of comparative survey research and second-order analyses produces relevant new insights into the scope and the potential of the European Social Survey or new and cognitively fruitful perspectives for similar investigations with other national or international survey data sets. As usual, we as authors bear full responsibility for all shortcomings and errors in the present volume, but also for all the comparative advantages, based on a second-order approach, and for the novelty which this second-order perspective is able to generate. Ljubljana and Vienna, August 2015 Brina Malnar Karl H. Müller 14 Surveys and Reflexivity: A Second-Order Analysis of the ESS Publications of the Authors in Co-operation with Niko Toš Niko Toš, Brina Malnar (1995), “Projekt slovensko javno mnenje – primer infrastrukturne podatkovne baze slovenske sociologije (Slovenian public opinion project – the infrastructural data base of Slovenian sociology), in: Teorija in praksa, Vol. 32, No. 9/10, 835–846 Ivan Bernik, Brina Malnar, Niko Toš (1996), “Die Paradoxa der instrumentallen Akzeptanz von Demokratie”, in: Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissen-schaft, Vol. 25, No. 3, 339–356. Niko Toš, Peter Ph. Mohler, Brina Malnar (1999)(eds.), Modern Society and Values. A Comparative Analysis Based on ISSP Project. Ljubljana: FSS, University of Ljubljana; Mannheim: ZUMA Niko Toš, Karl H. Müller (2005)(eds.), Political Faces of Slovenia. Political Orientations and Values at the End of the Century – Outlines Based on Slovenian Public Opinion Surveys. Preface by Janez Potočnik. Wien:edition echoraum Niko Toš, Karl H. Müller (2009)(eds.), Three Roads to Comparative Research: Analytical, Visual and Morphological. Wien:edition echoraum Lucka Kajfež-Bogataj, Karl H. Müller, Ivan Svetlik, Niko Toš (2010)(eds.), Modern RISC-Societies. Towards a New Paradigm for Societal Evolution. Wien:edition echoraum Niko Toš, Karl H. Müller (2011)(eds.), Primerjalno Družboslovje. Metodološkimin vsebinski vidiki. Ljubljana:Dokumenti SJM Karl H. Müller, Niko Toš (2012), Towards a New Kind of Social Science. Social Research in the Context of Science II and RISC-Societies. Wien:edition echoraum Karl H. Müller, Niko Toš (2012), “New Cognitive Environments for Survey Research in the Age of Science II”, in: Društvena Istraživanja. Journal for General Social Issues, Vol. 21, No. 2, 315–340 Karl H. Müller, Niko Toš (2012), “The Organization of Modern Societies: Core-Periphery or Vertically Stratified?”, in: Teorija in Praksa, Vol. 49, No. 3, 566–587 Foreword “Surveys and Reflexivity”: Some Thoughts Max Kaase In writing about the ESS, inevitably my first thought goes to Sir Roger Jowell who surprisingly and much too early passed away on December 25, 2011. With Roger, I personally have lost a colleague and close friend, but institutionally the ESS has lost its spiritus rector in the development from the 1999 ”Blueprint for the ESS” to the whole process of implementation. In the contemporary rational world the saying goes that there is nobody who cannot be replaced if necessary, but there are reasons to doubt that this is always true. One thing is sure: without Roger Jowell, the ESS would not be where it is today. Work on developing the ESS started in 1995 with a decision by the Standing Committee for the Social Sciences (SCSS) of the European Science Foundation (ESF) to accept my proposal to set up an “Expert Group” studying the feasibility of the ESS idea. This idea had originated from my experience with the comparative “Beliefs in Government” project which I had directed jointly with Kenneth Newton between 1988 and 1995. Funding of the Expert Group was to come through contributions by interested national research councils, following the then extant à la carte mode of funding research through ESF. The group produced a written report in 1996 and proposed to the SCSS to vigorously pursue the ESS concept by developing a detailed document (blueprint) for the steps envisaged to bring the ESS to life. The expert group report was accepted by the members of the SCSS who followed its recommendations and particularly emphasized the need for such a blueprint to be first discussed and accepted at a later point in time by the SCSS to be finally presented for approval to the ESF General Assembly. This was effected in 2000 and so set the stage for what over the years has become the ESS. Looking back from the contemporary situation of the ESS after having been transformed, in November 2013, into a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) under the auspices of the European Commission, it is hard to believe what all involved in this complicated process have been jointly able to achieve. But time has gone by, and I now strongly believe that the ESS needs expansion and innovations in order to remain what Roger and I wanted it to be: a top-notch multidimensional infrastructure for the social sciences. In this context I find the book edited by Brina Malnar and Karl H. Müller of particular relevance. Karl H. Müller was involved in the ESS from its early stages, first as a member of the Steering Committee and, later, as the national ESS-coordinator for Austria, as 16 Surveys and Reflexivity: A Second-Order Analysis of the ESS a member in the ESS Scientific Advisory Board. In 2012, at the ESS conference in Cyprus, he gave a fascinating lecture on three grand challenges for the ESS which is now published in this volume. Brina Malnar, from the University of Ljubljana over the last couple of years has invested a lot of effort in analyzing the annual record of publications using ESS data.. As one would expect, from 2003 on when the measurement started with 18 entries, this number has now substantially increased and for the year 2014 alone 381 publications were found which worked with data sets from the ESS. This achievement is even more remarkable considering that the share of peer-reviewed journal articles has increased from 24,1 % in 2004 to 56,1% in 2012. Publications thus are a benchmark which the ESS ERIC has to observe closely in the future and this, incidentally, provides already a strong argument in favor of continuing to collect the information of which and how many publications are based on ESS data. But the book “Surveys and Reflexivity” adds three important points which go well beyond collecting information on ESS-publications. − First, survey research and the scientific environment in which it flourishes are in permanent flux and have undergone significant transformations in recent years. These scientific changes and transitions are summarized in Part I of the book which not only deals with three grand challenges for the ESS, but in a more general vein also addresses great transformations for the science system as a whole. − Second, the results of investigating ESS publications have been placed in a new and wider context of second-order survey research which is presented in a systematic way in Part II of this book. Thus, the collection of ESS-publications, though significant and important, is not the only research task in this domain. Second-order survey studies as a new field offer a multiplicity of innovative perspectives which will be a challenging task in its own right to be pursued in the future. − Third, this book provides also a blueprint or a strategy to broaden the ESS ERIC substantive and methodological research approach. Part III of the book describes such additional ESS-components which reside on different science levels and which are focused on specific research objectives and tasks. In the final chapter, the overview of reflexive research designs which offer additional options for survey research as well very fittingly concludes the book. “Surveys and Reflexivity” presents many suggestions which should be discussed not only within the ESS-community, but also within and among European social science research infrastructures and presents even challenges for survey research in general. Obviously, definite answers on the feasibility and on the Max Kaase: Foreword 17 potential financial support necessary for instal ing all the activities which are proposed by Brina Malnar and Karl H. Müller will not easily be come by. But this type of input and new perspectives for advancing the ESS ERIC are needed in order to keep the ESS-ERIC in its leading role as a provider of research infrastructure support as well as of high quality research for the European social science community and beyond. Abstracts Part I: Big Changes and Grand Challenges The Contemporary Great Transformation of the Science System The first chapter presents several themes which are highly relevant as background knowledge for the subsequent chapters. First, this chapter presents a transition from Science I, the traditional science regime from the 16th century onward to the turn of the 20th century, to Science II, the emerging new epistemic regime since 1900/1950. Strong arguments are provided why the change from Science I to Science II should be considered as a most powerful and comprehensive science drift which qualifies as a complexity revolution of the overall science system.. Finally, the first chapter presents some results from an online survey which was sent out to experts in the field of science studies worldwide. The assumptions of Science II as a complexity revolution could be supported empirically through this online-survey. A Scientific Revolution in Reflexivity The transition from Science I to Science II has been described, so far, as a complexity revolution. However, this transition can also be classified as a reflexivity revolution in multiple dimensions and practically across all scientific disciplines. Reflexivity is characterized by a circular configuration between two components x, y like in x causes y and y causes x or between a single building block like in x ↔ x. The current reflexivity revolution manifests itself, above al , in a new form of science, called second-order science, which fulfils vital functions for the overall science system in terms of quality control, of creating robust forms of knowledge and of providing challenging new research problems and large opportunities for innovations. Three Grand Challenges for the European Social Survey (ESS) The third chapter neither operates with data from the European Social Survey nor is it focused on the methodology of comparative social research. Rather, this chapter analyzes the ESS as a system of societal self-observation and its future prospects and challenges. More specifically, this chapter is divided into three major parts. 20 Surveys and Reflexivity: A Second-Order Analysis of the ESS The introductory part summarizes the major achievements reached through the ESS-data production over the last years. A short second part deals with internal challenges to the ESS which result from a rather weak connection between societal changes and the monitoring capacities of the ESS. The major part of the article turns to three external grand challenges of the ESS. The first grand challenge lies in new sources and in new technologies of societal self-observations by process-generated data. The second grand challenge comes from the cognitive neuro-sciences and their new perspectives and their experimental designs for the study of cognitive processes like remembering, answering questions, understanding, etc. The third grand challenge, the most challenging of all three, enters on scene once the internal and the two grand external challenges re-enforce each other and are integrated into a vicious circle. Part II: An ESS-Analysis of ESS-Analyses An Outline of Second-Order Survey-Analyses The fourth chapter leads into the new and open domain of second-order survey analyses. The chapter builds two main roads for a combination of surveys and reflexivity. The first trajectory uses inputs from surveys like the questionnaire, methods or methodologies and the like and organizes a second-order study on these inputs. The second path which will be chosen also for an in-depth empirical analysis is focused on the outputs of surveys like data patterns, responses or publications. For each of these two main roads to second-order survey investigations a variety of different types of analyses can be specified which are mostly new and open for further studies. A Second-Order ESS-Study of ESS-Studies: Empirical Results The fifth chapter becomes the central part of this book because it summarizes the empirical results of a second-order ESS-analysis of ESS-analyses. This chapter provides a detailed description of the second-order methodology, used for this chapter as well as of the data and information base which was constructed for approximately 3000 articles with ESS-data. The two main second-order profiles are focused on European social scientists and their theoretical and thematic preferences on the one hand and on the utilization of the ESS-data set on the other hand. The chapter also contains comparative second-order analyses of the ESS with other large-scale surveys like the European Value Survey or the World Value Survey. Abstracts 21 A Deep Search for Second-Order Survey-Analyses The final chapter in Part II presents an overview of expanding second-order ESS-analyses from its current data and information base. The main focus lies in an expansion with other European surveys and the new possibilities for in-depth second-order comparative investigations. The chapter concludes with a future outlook in the possibilities and options of second-order survey analyses of second-order survey analyses which require a large number of available second-order survey studies. Part III: Meeting the Grand Challenges Widening ESS-ERIC across Three Levels Within the context of a differentiation into three science levels, namely into a zero-order, first-order and a second-order level with three corresponding types of science, Chapter 7 presents an agenda for empowering the organization of the ESS along all three levels. At the zero-order level new clusters of data should be generated which produce relevant new contexts for the interpretation of ESS-data. The first-order level should be used for an ESS-research agenda on embedded cognition. And the second-order level should experience a massive expansion of second-order investigation and the construction of a second-order monitoring system. This empowerment across three levels is intended to be able to meet the three grand challenges for the ESS, outlined in the third chapter. The Multiple Faces of Reflexive Survey Designs The final chapter widens the perspectives of reflexive survey research. In sum, reflexive survey research can be grouped into five clusters with circular relations between two elements x ↔ x, namely circular relations between survey researchers, between scientific building blocks like survey inputs or outputs, between systemic levels, between rules and rule systems of surveys or as circular relations or x ↔ y between these four components. By far the most important cluster is the second cluster of second-order survey analyses which becomes reflexive through a re-entry operation RE into a survey element x and which establishes its circular formation as x(x). Many of the research problems in these five clusters in reflexive survey research are still unexplored and pose grand challenges for the future. Part I Fundamental Changes and Grand Challenges Background European Social Survey (ESS) 4 6 5 3 8 2 1 7 It seems that it is hard for us to let go our old views. Pioneers and revolutionaries in many fields can only point the way. They indicate, they strain in the direction they are pointing, but in the end they are too tied to the place that generated the need for the pioneering changes to be able to move themselves. After they have pointed the way, others must make the running. Ranulph Glanville, The Black B∞x, Volume III Part I of the present volume deals intensively with two typical background phenomena for survey research, namely, on the one hand, with big changes, transformations and drifts in the overall science system and, on the other hand, with grand challenges for the European Social Survey as European research infrastructure for the social sciences. Both background issues become relevant for the future development of the ESS-program and for its further expansion. However, identifying major drifts or phase transitions in the science system is confronted with a major challenge because a seemingly insurmountable barrier was created by Karl R. Popper which can be qualified as Popper’s barrier, on the impossibility of forecasting the future of science. As an unusual starting point for introducing Popper’s barrier, a reference can be made to Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense in the Bush-administration, who made an unexpected distinction on three different domains of knowledge and ignorance. In a speech from February 12, 2002 Rumsfeld proposed the following demarcations. … as we know, there are known knowns: there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns: that is to say, we know there some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. Paradoxically as it seems at first sight, the second and the third domain of known unknowns or unknown unknowns have at least one remarkable instance which, not surprisingly, has to do with knowledge itself and, more specifically, with future scientific knowledge. For Popper, forecasts were reserved for systems and configurations which were characterized by attributes like being closed, stationary or ergodic (Popper, 1965: 339). But the universe we observe and operate in is intrinsically open and emergent. In fact, Popper provides a beautiful example that observations, descriptions and explanations of the world add, by necessity, to its genuine openness. 26 Surveys and Reflexivity: A Second-Order Analysis of the ESS The incompletability and openness of the universe is perhaps best illustrated by a version of the well-known story of the man who draws a map of his room, including in his map the map which he is drawing. His task defies completion, for he has to take account, within his map, of his latest entry. (Popper, 1982a:129) In a more advanced form Popper sets out to prove that future knowledge belongs to the domain of known unknowns which, by necessity, cannot be known in advance. 1. If complete self-prediction can be shown to be impossible, whatever the complexity of the predictor, then this must also hold for any ‘society’ of interacting predictors; consequently, no ‘society’ of interacting predictors can predict its own future states of knowledge; 2. The course of human history is strongly influenced by the growth of human knowledge ... 3. We cannot, therefore, predict the future course of human history; not, at any rate, those of its aspects which are strongly influenced by the growth of our knowledge (Popper, 1982a: 63). But future knowledge has another highly intriguing property. From a long-term evolutionary knowledge perspective future knowledge was always full of unknown unknowns as well. Time and again, new theories, mechanisms, models or measurements moved the knowledge boundaries into hitherto new domains and dimensions. Both the astronomic and the sub-atomic space-time scales and processes belong to the unknown unknowns for a natural scientist around 1750 or even 1850. Additionally, the effects of the unknown unknowns to the known configuration belong to the unknown unknowns as well. Thus, Popper’s barrier looks well-founded and, especially important, insurmountable. Future scientific knowledge, due to its dual qualities of belonging to the class of known unknowns and unknown unknowns lie beyond the domain of possible scientific investigations. Being confronted with Popper’s barrier the most natural alternative would be to restrain from the analysis of future knowledge and restrict oneself to the historical aspects of knowledge and science evolution alone. But Popper’s barrier does not prevent, however, two groups of analysis of future scientific knowledge. − The first cluster of studies of science futures lies in the area of known unknowns and is centered on the diffusion of contemporary knowledge domains or of scientific disciplines. Like in innovation research it is worthwhile to study diffusion histories of scientific fields or disciplines in detail and to apply the findings from these studies for current innovations in scientific knowledge and their likely trajectories in the future. − The second cluster of analyses on the future evolution of science is situated in the domain of unknown unknowns. Here, researchers can be asked Part I: Fundamental Changes and Grand Challenges 27 repeatedly about their subjective assessments whether fundamental changes in specific knowledge domains are highly likely or unlikely and whether a state of cognitive equilibrium has been reached in these particular areas or not. These two groups of research issues can be dealt with independently and despite Popper’s barrier. While these two clusters of research questions cannot remove Popper’s stop sign with respect to the predictability of future scientific knowledge, they remove effectively an attitude of ignoramus, ignorabimus (du Bois-Reymond, 1912) which Emil du Bois-Reymond cultivated in his talk on the limits to the knowledge of nature, held 1872 in Leipzig. Thus, despite the (un)known unknowns in science a lot more can be said about them aside from being simply (un)known unknowns. The Contemporary Great Transformation of the Science System 1 Background European Social Survey (ESS) 4 6 5 3 8 2 1 7 Every piece of learning we do, and every bit of knowing we learn, is ours. We are free to understand, and we understand as only we understand. We are also responsible. There is no one to blame. Ranulph Glanville, The Black B∞x, Volume III This volume on surveys and reflexivity is embedded within several broad contemporary science drifts and great transformations which will become the main topic of this chapter. At the outset however, the special configuration of the period from 1940 to 1960 will be specified as the initial condition for these drifts and transformations and as a phase of a significant reconfiguration of the overall science system. 1.1 The Open Science Horizons 1940–1960 In the long run, the structure of scientific evolution can be characterized, following Nicholas Rescher (1982, 1999), by a cyclical pattern of close and wide distances with respect to a perceived final horizon of knowledge production.1 Such a cyclical pattern of cognitive completeness seems to be highly interesting and illuminating for the decades from 1940 to 1960. Figures 1.1 exhibits, according to Nicholas Rescher, the basic swing in the 20th century which started as a revolution in physics and was accompanied by a considerable opening in medical science and psychology by the new science of psychoanalysis as well as by a fundamental insight into the necessary incompleteness of logical systems and mathematics. The most important point in Figure 1.1 lies in the cognitive status of the period between 1940 and 1960. According to Nicholas Rescher, this particular phase shared a unique feature in the history of science, namely a very high value for the level of perceived ignorance and, thus, a minimal value for the ratio Q of the level of cognitive completeness which results from the ratio of the level of perceived knowledge F and the level of perceived ignorance G. Thus, Θ = Φ/Γ (1.1) After an already long-lasting period of scientific evolution, open cognitive horizons or frontiers can only emerge through a complete recombination in 1 On this point, see also Maddox, 1998. 32 Surveys and Reflexivity: A Second-Order Analysis of the ESS the cognitive foundations and in the scientific as well as in the technological knowledge base by discrediting old paradigms, traditional cognitive networks and the established technological infrastructure. FIGURE 1.1 Open Cognitive Horizons 1900–2000 Θ Level of Cognitive Completeness as the Ratio Φ/Γ Instead, one can observe the proliferation and diffusion of new paradigms with radically different cognitive network structures and a new technological infrastructure as well. It should be added as an empirical support that during the two decades between 1940 and 1960 the science system was placed on a new inter- and transdisciplinary platform, due to the emergence of – − a general theory of systems − a general theory of information − the transdisciplinary science of cybernetics − the emergence of the cognitive sciences as well as on a new science landscape. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the normative sciences – logic, mathematics, ethics, etc. – have been expanded, augmented and, above al , opened by various new frameworks. In mathematics, for instance, one can observe the transition from David Hilbert’s vision of a fully self-contained mathematical axiomatics at the turn of the century to a state of necessary incompleteness and to an algorithmic re-definition of effective calculability by Church, Kleene, Gödel, Herbrand, Post, and Turing. This brought about a radical paradigm shift, in which the basic architecture, the potentials, but also the necessary boundaries, i.e. , the blind spots and unavoidable limitations of arithmetical or deductive operations could be clearly identified and established. In the field of logic, for example, one finds a multiplication of B. Malnar | K.H. Müller: Contemporary Great Transformation of Science System 33 logical systems between 1910, when Bertrand Russell and Alfred N. Whitehead’s “Principia Mathematica” was first published, and the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, where one can find systems of many-valued logic, inductive logic,2 modal logic, deontic logic, and many others. The empirical sciences also experienced a gradual shift of gravity and focus within the period of 1940 to 1960, thus successively ending the Golden Age of physics of the preceding four centuries. After a few years of hectically searching for a unifying pattern, the basic structure of the genetic code was decoded in 1953, finally making it possible to translate it into the language of biology and subsequently into bio-technology.3 Just like the planetary structure of the atom proposed by Ernest Rutherford at the beginning of the 20th century, Francis Crick and James Watson’s discovery of the DNA structure was an important starting point, which would turn out to be the beginning of a gradual rise of biology or, more generally, the life sciences as a new leading discipline. Physics, as a key field, maintained its status as an area of large-scale research and a complex of mainly big science. From a technological point of view and in terms of its basic models and mechanisms, however, it slowly started to lose ground to a very extensively structured biological or life science field, which comprised, among other components, large parts of brain research, physiology, and medicine. Another characteristic feature of the scientific landscapes of that time lies in the new connections between formal and natural sciences, which had likewise been established between 1940 and 1960. In those years, the key empirical disciplines achieved a substantial number of formal syntheses, which eventually led to a re-definition of their basic theoretical foundations. In 1943, for instance, Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts developed a model of the neuron and the neuronal connections, which was strongly based on Carnap’s system of logic.4 At the end of the 1930s, Claude E. Shannon transformed logic, which was originally expressed by Boolean algebra, into a circuit language (Shannon, 1940). Moreover, the Turing machine constructed in 1936 can clearly be seen as the godfather of the new computer generation that started to evolve about ten years later. The structures and forms of the Bourbaki group became a central point of reference in the formulation of developmental psychology.5 Finally, John von Neumann 2 See, for example, the rather voluminous edition of Carnap, 1950. 3 For James D. Watson’s own account of the story, which is also quite thrilling from a historical point of view, see Watson, 1970. 4 It strikes as rather interesting that this pioneer work by McCulloch and Pitts only contains three references to other publications, all of them dealing with logic, namely to Rudolf Carnap, to Hilbert/Ackermann, and to Russell/Whitehead (cf. McCulloch/Pitts, 1988: 39, orig. 1943) 5 For an overview see Piaget, 1973 and 1983. Piaget defines the common structuralist reference point of the Bourbaki group in terms of isomorphisms to identify the most general structures. 34 Surveys and Reflexivity: A Second-Order Analysis of the ESS and Oskar Morgenstern used logic and strategic interactions to formalise game theory (von Neumann/Morgenstern, 1944). Logics and linguistics also led Noam Chomsky to develop new syntheses in the field of generative grammars6 – and this is by far not the end of the list. Compared to thirty, or even sixty or a hundred years ago, the world of science had also considerably changed with regard to its disciplinary foundations and its normative – empirical boundaries. To conclude, these twenty years are characterized by a maximum degree of open frontiers. 1.2 The Great Transformation 1940–2015: The Shift from Science I to Science II The most dramatic change comes, however, from the next differentiation. From the 1940s and 1950s onwards the science system as a whole has entered a phase of a radical or great transformation from an old regime, called Science I, to a new regime under the name of Science II.7 Science I was the dominant form of science from the beginning of modern science in the 16th century up to the period of 1900 to 1950. Science II, consequently, emerged over the last decades and will turn out to be the new hegemonic regime, although Science II will not replace Science I completely. In a variety of domains and applications Science I-models and methods will still be used. Table 1.1 lists several key dimensions of this great transformation from Science I to Science II. In the context of Science II the theoretical, ontological and methodological background knowledge for scientific disciplines undergoes significant changes, too. Clearly, these new building blocks for Science II will exert a considerable cognitive pressure on the theory and research organization from the era of Science I and should lead to new theory structures and research designs for the social sciences or the humanities as well. Table 1.2 summarizes these changes in background knowledge that will become of particular relevance for scientific investigations across disciplines in the future. 6 In this respect, see Chomsky, 1957, 1964, 1965. 7 On this distinction between Science I and Science II, see especially Hol ingsworth/Müller, 2008 and on a wider discussion of this separation see Boyer, 2008, Mayntz, 2008, Nowotny, 2008 or Sornette, 2008. B. Malnar | K.H. Müller: Contemporary Great Transformation of Science System 35 TABLE 1.1 Changes in the Theoretical, Ontological and Methodological Dimensions of Science I and Science II Dimensions Science I Science II Leading Fields of Classical Physics Evolutionary Biology and the Sciences Science of Complexity (Cognitive Neuro- Sciences in the Decades ahead) Theoretical Goals General, Universal Laws Pattern Formation and Pattern Recognition Theoretical Axiomatic, Reductionistic Nested and Embedded Processes Perspectives Leading Metaphors Clocks Clouds Core Philosophers Rene Descartes (Cogito) Ludwig Wittgenstein (Cogitamus) Ontology Dualism ( res cogitans/ Monism, Self-Organization Capacities res extensa) Generative Trivial Mechanisms Non-Trivial Mechanisms Mechanisms Forecasting High Low Capabilities Complexity Low High Perspectives on Linear, Equilibrium Non-Linear, far from Equilibrium Change Distributions Emphasis on Mild Emphasis on Wild Distributions Distributions Potential for Low High Inter-Disciplinary Research Cognitive Distances High Medium/Small between the Social Sciences and the Leading Field of Science As can be seen from Table 1.2, the main differences between the old and the new background knowledge cover the entire domain of analyses, namely the subjects of investigation, the objects of analysis and, finally, the interaction modes between subject and object of analysis. All three domains differ strongly between Science I and Science II. In short, Science II is organized in a way where the subjects of analysis become an indispensable and inclusive part of an investigation. The objects of analysis turn out to be far more complex than the trivial objects within Science I. Finally, the interactions between subjects and objects are organized in a closed triadic as well as recursive manner. 36 Surveys and Reflexivity: A Second-Order Analysis of the ESS TABLE 1.2 Changes in the Background Knowledge of Science I and Science II Domains of Back-ground Science I [Theoretical Science II [Life Sciences Knowledge Physics as Leading as LD] Discipline (LD)] Objects of Objects Living Systems Investigation Simple Action Embedded Cognition Schemes Cognitive Isolationism Cognitive Holism Single Account Requisite Variety Sufficient Necessary Subjects of Sequential, Linear Observer-Inclusion Investigation Interactions (between Equilibrium Recursive, Non-Linear Subjects and Objects) Dyadic, Asymmetric Forms Triadic, Symmetric Configurations The methodological and theoretical elements of the new background knowledge emerge from the leading fields of Science II, namely form the cognitive life sciences, broadly conceived whereas the new epistemological components come from a diverse group of frameworks which are particularly focused on the specificities of living systems like the approaches by Robert Rosen (Rosen, 1991) and Walter M. Elsasser (Elsasser, 1998), radical constructivism or, as specially relevant subsets of radical constructivism,8 second-order cybernetics9 or the autopoietic approach.10 These and similar perspectives are especially relevant for shaping the core epistemologies of Science II-research.11 From both sides, the theoretical-methodological and the epistemological one, the conventional wisdom of research in the social science and humanities-domain is not only questioned in its core aspects and in its central designs,12 but social science and humanities research is also very much encouraged to change its traditional perspectives in order to become compatible with the new Science II landscapes. 8 On radical constructivism in general, see, as summaries Watzlawick, 1981, Watzlawick/Krieg, 1991, Schmidt, 1987 or Glasersfeld, 1997. 9 For second-order cybernetics, see especially von Foerster, 2003. 10 On the autopoietic approach, see, for example, Maturana, 1985 or Maturana/Varela, 1987. 11 Second-order cybernetics has been developed explicitly by Heinz von Foerster as a science of living systems for living systems. On Heinz von Foerster and his work at the Biological Computer Laboratory, see especially Foerster, 2003, Müller/Müller, 2007 and Müller, 2007. 12 For interesting overviews and approaches, see Palombo, 1999 or Ryckman, 2000, 1.3 Science II and Shifts in Leading Fields Table 1.3 presents a summary of two and possibly three stages of hegemonic regimes which, despite being part and parcel of the scientific method, are also characterized by significantly different epistemic practices.13 TABLE 1.3 Leading Science Fields in the Evolution of Science, 1650–2150 Leading Science Field Characteristics The Age of Physics Rise of Newtonian Physics; Application across a Large (1687–1900/1950) Number of Fields; Maximum Level through the system of Maxwell- equations (Unification to an electromagnetic field theory); Tipping Point: Einstein’s Special and General Theory of Relativity as well as the Quantum Physics drift towards a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) Electro-Mechanic Technologies The Age of the Life Sciences Pre-phase 1859 – 1950 (Darwin’s theory of evolution) (app. 1859–2050) Breakthrough into a self-sustained take-off via the decoding of the genetic code (Watson and Crick 1951) Evolutionary theories and models for evolutionary dynamics move along a “grammar of becoming” Recombinant Bio-technologies The Age of the Cognitive Pre-phase 1948–2050 (Pre-phase for the Cognitive Sciences Sciences) Breakthrough to a new leading discipline (app. 1948–2150) around 2050 Cognitive technologies According to Table 1.3 these three hegemonic regimes can be classified as − the age of theoretical physics (1687–1900/1950) − the age of life sciences (1859 – app. 2030/2050) − the age of cognitive neural sciences (from 2030/2050 onwards) More specifically, the succession of theoretical physics to the life sciences implies also a shift in the cognitive routines from, following Karin Knorr-Cetina (1999), theoretically closed forms to open, tinkering, trial and error procedures. The shifts in basic research in the current scientific hegemon’s region, namely in the United States, become obvious from Figure 1.2. Around 1998 an important exchange has occurred. In this year the expenditures on basic research in life 13 For a highly relevant account in this respect, see especially Karin Knorr-Cetina, 1999. 38 Surveys and Reflexivity: A Second-Order Analysis of the ESS sciences, were surpassing for the first time those for the natural and engineering sciences. In 1970 the expenditures for the natural sciences and engineering had been around the double volume of those for the life sciences, but from 1970 to 1998 one can observe a convergence in spending. Since 1998 the costs of basic research in the life sciences have been rising strongly, whereas the expenditure on natural sciences and engineering increased only lightly. FIGURE 1.2 The Shift in the Financing of U.S. Basic Research from 1970 to 2002 to the Life Sciences (in Billion U.S. Dollars at Prices of 2000) 25 20 15 10 5 0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Live Sciences Natural and Social Sciences Technical Sciences and Humanities Furthermore, an online survey was created by us which was not designed as an open access-survey, but was based on invitations only. Approximately 150 experts on the long-term evolution of science were contacted worldwide and nearly 50% (N = 73) answered the online survey.14 Figure 1.3 shows the responses with respect to changes in leading fields. The mean value of the scale, viz. 5, indicates an indifferent position while values larger than 5 show a mild to a strong agreement and values less than 5 indicate small to very strong rejections. 14 For more details on the results of this online survey, see Müller/Toš, 2012: 21–61. B. Malnar | K.H. Müller: Contemporary Great Transformation of Science System 39 From the left side of Figure 1.3 one can see only 27% in the negative group and approximately 61% in the favorable group. It is impressive to see that the groups with strong approval rates with values 8 to 10 – or with strong rejection rates with values 0 to 2 are very asymmetrically distributed: 41.1% of all respondents agree strongly with the current transition in the leading scientific fields to the life sciences, while only 17.8% of the respondents consider such a shift as highly implausible. In this sense, the results of the questionnaire provide, a rather strong indication that currently an important phase transition from Science I to Science II is well under way which manifests itself, inter alia, in an exchange in the leading science fields towards the life sciences. FIGURE 1.3 The Changes in the Leading Fields form Theoretical Physics to the Life Sciences (Left Figure) and from the Life Sciences to the Cognitive Sciences (Right Figure) Each square represents a single respondent (N= 73) The right side of Figure 1.3 provides the assessments for a potential science drift in the future from the life sciences to the cognitive sciences. The assumption of a future change in the leading sciences turns out to be rather risky because only a slight majority of 50.7% thinks of it as at least weakly plausible. A strong skeptic group of 46.6% is found, which, weakly to decisively, rejects a future shift from the life sciences to the cognitive sciences. It is also interesting that a relatively large group of around 20% considers such a transition in the leading sciences to be virtually impossible. Figure 1.4 exhibits the assessments of the long-term future of major scientific fields. 40 Surveys and Reflexivity: A Second-Order Analysis of the ESS FIGURE 1.4 Expansion and Contraction of Major Science Fields 2010– 2050 (+5: Very Strong Growth, -5: Very Strong Decline) Each square represents a single respondent (N= 73) Figure 1.4 makes it very clear that the science drift towards the life sciences is also supported by the assessment on the future development potential of the life sciences. Interestingly, none of the respondents chose even a modest decline as a likely future trajectory. The answers differed only in the growth rates of the future the increase of the life sciences. In addition to the life sciences the medical sciences have, according to the opinions of all respondents, a very strong expansion potential, which is seen as highly similar to that of the life sciences. It is interesting to note that two other large fields associated with the life sciences are classified as strongly expansionary, namely, on the one hand, the information sciences with its strong interface of bioinformatics and, on the other hand, the environmental sciences. Here one may assume a mutually supportive cluster of science fields, which forms the cognitive backbone of the science drift in the coming years and decades. B. Malnar | K.H. Müller: Contemporary Great Transformation of Science System 41 It is quite telling that the technical sciences are granted a strong potential for expansion, but it is significantly lower than that in the preceding group of science fields. After al , a strong quarter (28.8%) of the respondents assigned values of 0 or lower to the technical sciences. Likewise, only 16.5% see a very strong expansion potential for technological sciences in the future. The social sciences appear even more restricted in their future expansion because only a weak expansive development was considered to be likely. Almost 40% of the respondents expect a stagnant or even declining future for the social sciences. This finding for the social sciences is only surpassed by the humanities, for which only a stagnant future was specified as a likely option. 56.2% of the respondents chose values of 0 or less in the humanities, hence giving this particular domain, in comparison with other major science fields, the lowest ranking. To sum up, the respondents provided a ranking of major science fields into four groups. The rank-ordering of scientific fields with respect to their future diffusion was established in the following way: − Strong Expansion: life sciences, medical sciences, information sciences, environmental sciences − Medium Expansion: Technical Sciences − Weak Expansion / Stagnation: Social Sciences − Stagnation / Decline: Humanities These results conclude the assessments on the future expansion, stagnation and decline of major disciplinary science clusters. 1.4 Science II as a Complexity Revolution With respect to the great transformation from Science I to Science II, one must mention Friedrich A. von Hayek who already in 1967 wrote a rather neglected article entitled “The Theory of Complex Phenomena” respectively “Die Theorie komplexer Phänomene” (Hayek, 1967, German edition 1972). In this article, Hayek developed a typology which was based on simple and complex phenomena and processes. Table 1.3 lists the results of these fine distinctions between simple and complex phenomena in several dichotomies which can be related to the primary great transformation from Science I to Science II. The following two equivalences which for obvious reasons cannot be found in Friedrich A. Hayek can be established. Simple phenomena Ξ Science I Complex phenomena Ξ Science II 42 Surveys and Reflexivity: A Second-Order Analysis of the ESS Science II can be equated to complex and Science I to simple phenomena and processes. According to the Table 1.3 the central concepts for complex alias Science II manifest in patterns, in pattern recognition, in pattern forecasts as well as in the pattern production or pattern formation. Accordingly, the analysis of complex phenomena proves to be model based, and is in a striking contrast to the law-based paradigm for simple phenomena and processes. TABLE 1.4 Friedrich A. Hayek’s Distinctions between Simple (Science I) and Complex Phenomena (Science II) Dimensions Simple Phenomena Complex Phenomena (Science I) (Science II) Degree of Complexity Low High Measure of Complexity Small number of Variables Large number of Variables Bond between Variables Causality Generative Relations Specification Schema Laws Pattern Mode of Analysis Covering Law-Model Pattern-recognition Prediction Law-based Pattern-based Leading Science Classical Physics Evolutionary Biology and Complexity Sciences 1.5 The Hidden Dimensions of Science II So far, Science II was characterized as a revolution in complexity which is reshaping and transforming the architecture of science into its new template of Science II. However, Science II can be characterized, aside from its complexity dimensions, by another principal component which remains largely implicit or hidden. A first hint on these implicit dimensions can be found in the work of Ulrich Beck (1986, 2000, 2007). In Beck’s books on Modernity II and on a new phase in the development of science, one finds a scheme which, according to Beck, should be qualified as reflexive and which, for obvious reasons, will be characterized here as self-infective. Here, science is confronted with its own products and with its own expertise because of new societal problems which are partially based on scientific problem solutions from pervious stages. In the course of their implementation and their diffusion these former scientific problem solutions have become have become a source for contemporary societal problems themselves. Thus, following Beck, science is confronted more and more with unintended consequences of its own expertise in the form of forecasts, scenarios, evaluations, assessments or B. Malnar | K.H. Müller: Contemporary Great Transformation of Science System 43 consulting and its own scientific-technological problem-solutions in the shape of new or improved technologies or socio-technical systems. This rather new situation can, thus, be qualified as self-infective and its re-entries occur in the domain of societal problems at time t by scientific problem solutions k at t and their gradual transformation into societal problems. Due to this self-