Anne Rohstock

In my talk I will ask what educational science in general and historical educational research in particular should look like that includes as many of its ‘societal’ co-producers in its work as possible. What should a science of education look like whose concern it is to take into account many of its co-thinkers, its hybrids, the networks, circumstances, detours, techniques, and interests with which it emerges in co-production? How could an educational researcher write relying on cogitamus – we think – rather than on the discursively purifying cogito of modern science (Latour 2016)? Following Isabelle Stengers, Donna Haraway, Vinciane Despret, and Bruno Latour I will subsequently argue for a slowing down of research in the educational sciences. It takes time to establish relationships between researchers, between researchers and a broader public, but also between researchers and non-human knowledge producers. It takes time to make these relationships of educational research that is research-intertwined-with-others visible in scientific texts, to record them, and to reflexively include the non-linear back and forth of the joint work as a condition for the emergence of (scientific) knowledge (Harrasser 2018: 107). Similar to primatologists Barbara Smuts and Shirley Strum, who – excluded from the male-dominated, ‘fast’ scientific establishment – took the time to search for “suitable relationships” with primates in lengthy and small-scale work (Stengers 2018: 42, 776; Muecke 2018; Despret 2019), it could also be a matter for educational science to carefully retard its research. Such a slow science (Stengers 2018) would not be less but differently productive. By interweaving epistemology and ethics, epistemological interest and “politeness” (Despret 2005: 360) slow educational science is not only about asking better questions. It is also about getting better, more relevant answers (Solhdju, n.d.: 25).

References

• Despret, Vinciane (2005). ‚Sheep do have opinions‘, in Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel (eds.), Making Things Public: Atmosphere of Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press, 360–368.
• Despret, Vinciane (2019). Was würden Tiere sagen, würden wir die richtigen Fragen stellen? Münster: Unrast-Verlag.
• Harrasser, Karin (2018).‚Irgendwann nie modern gewesen sein. Zur Zeitstruktur situierten Wissens‘, in Kathrin Busch, Christina Dörfling, Kathrin Peters and Ildikó Szántó (eds.), Wessen Wissen? Materialität und Situiertheit in den Künsten. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink, 104–113.
• Latour, Bruno (2016). Cogitamus. Trans. by Bettina Engels and Nikolaus Gramm. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
• Muecke, Stephen (2018). ‚How ‘Slow Science’ Can Improve the Way We Do and Interpret Research.’ The Conversation, January 28, 2018. Available online under: https://theconversation.com/how-slow-science-can-improve-the-way-we-do-and-interpret-research-90168 (21.2.2021)
• Solhdju, Katrin (n.d.). Öffnungen aufs Mögliche. Co-konstruktive Verwirklichungen von Steinen, Eiern, Schafen und anderen Lebewesen. Available online under: https://www.academia.edu/19861930/Öffnungen_aufs_Mögliche_- Co_konstruktive_Verwirklichungen_von_Steinen_Eiern_Scha- fen_und_anderen_Lebewesen (15.2.2021)
• Stengers, Isabelle (2018). Another Science is Possible. A Manifesto for Slow Science. Trans. by Stephen Muecke. Cambridge: Polity Press.