In 2022, I joined Bielefeld University as a PostDoc – a move that felt like a natural fit for me. Since my master’s studies, I have been deeply immersed in the fields of theory of history and digital history, culminating in my doctorate on digital hypertext and multimodal publication formats for historical scholarship. Few universities fully embrace the breadth of digital historical research, but Bielefeld’s Digital History working group, led by Silke Schwandt, stands out as a pioneering formation with a wealth of innovative research activities. Its theoretical and methodological focuses, particularly in text mining and visualization of humanities research data, have attracted me a lot, and they align closely with my own interests while providing ample opportunities for dialogue.

Moreover, Bielefeld University’s rich tradition in theory of history and its deep commitment to interdisciplinary research resonate with my approach to combining data-driven, computational methods with theoretical considerations and hermeneutic work in the humanities. Bielefeld offers an excellent synergistic environment for this kind of research, making me excited to have found a new academic home here.

My current research focuses on a digitally-assisted methodology for exploring discourses about democracy during the era of the Weimar Republic. This period was marked by immense political and social conflicts, as well as significant economic strains. In historical research, therefore, the crisis narrative has dominated portrayals of Weimar Germany for a long time. In this context, “uncertainty” relates to the struggle for survival of Germany's first democracy, which tragically ended with the establishment of the national-socialist dictatorship. However, since the turn of the millennium, historians have increasingly criticized this one-sided portrayal, shifting focus to the contingency and opportunities of the republic. In this sense, “uncertainty” can be interpreted as a framework of possibilities to be navigated within a contingency history of Weimar.

My project addresses this very aspect. While research has abandoned its strong focus on the enemies of democracy for some time, studying pro-democratic forces still holds significant potential for a more nuanced understanding of the political culture in Germany between the World Wars. In my research, this represents one layer of uncertainty: The meaning of “democracy” was far from clear at that time and was fiercely debated in harsh discourses. Filling the concept with life discursively was one way of navigating uncertainty for historical actors. It was, at the same time, a way to shape the present and future political course of post-war Germany. To better understand democracy as a contingent, thus uncertain, research object through the lens of the press, I examine digitized newspapers, combining quantitative digital methods with qualitative approaches into a “scalable reading” approach.

Recently, an article has been published in the edited volume "Zoomland. Exploring Scale in Digital History and Humanities" (Open Access), where I discuss my project in more detail. 

In applying this approach, I aim to contribute to another level of uncertainty, namely methodological uncertainty: Quantitative text analyses cover a wide range of source material but are often blind to the historical context that is crucial for any substantiated interpretation of the analysis results. Qualitative analyses, on the other hand, provide in-depth insights but can miss many relevant primary sources. My goal is to bring the best of both worlds together, tailoring the mixed-methods approach to the polarized newspaper discourses of the Weimar Germany period.

The great appeal of CeUS for me lies in how the broad umbrella term is illuminated from various angles. For many disciplines and research directions, the category of uncertainty is a shared guiding theme, yet each field focuses on other facets and research questions, requiring specified approaches. This way, uncertainty does not become an essentialized concept but a multi-faceted phenomenon, enabling cross-disciplinary dialogue and mutual stimulation. My research has already benefitted from this a lot, and I hope to further deepen these conversations in the future.

At the same time, CeUS is an excellent place for launching new joint projects. In the discussions among center members, points of contact and ideas emerge that inspire collaborative contacts of competencies and visions. Research on uncertainty thus becomes an emergent activity that serves as a way of navigating uncertainty itself. We are already exchanging such ideas and pursuing new activities. Additionally, the CeUS working papers series provide an attractive platform for introducing these new research initiatives at an early stage into broader discussions.

Interdisciplinarity is nothing less than at the core of my research. As a historian addressing the political culture of Weimar Germany, I incorporate perspectives from historical research, broader cultural studies and anthropological research. I operationalize discourse-theoretical approaches, which, in my case, are socio-linguistically influenced. Furthermore, the application of digital data-driven research in humanities studies inherently bridges disciplines: It involves programming scripts, annotating digitized texts, statistically analyzing word frequencies and specific word combinations, and other computational techniques. All this becomes integrated with historical interpretation. To put it in a nutshell, my work revolves around theoretical and methodological triangulations.

This orientation immensely benefits from my association with CeUS. There, I learn a great deal from my peers and engage in fruitful exchange about, for example, social-psychological approaches focusing on anthropological constants, social network analyses, and means to test my assumptions through digital modeling techniques. In turn, I try to provide my own ideas and knowledge to these discussions. CeUS is an ideal flexible hub for this type of synergistic inter- and transdisciplinary work.

One particularly striking memory from the CeUS conference is how well uncertainty functioned as an overarching category. The various involved disciplines and projects found a lively dialogue about an admittedly broad umbrella term. Thematic, theoretical, and methodological bridges remained clearly visible throughout, even though topics like people’s perception of the COVID pandemic, right-wing discourse in Germany post-World War I, or dealing with consumer inflation might seem unrelated at first glance. Consequently, I took away insights from various directions.

Beyond that, Carlo Jaeger’s closing keynote on “Uncertainty in the Anthropocene” offered intriguing insights into decision-making problems at the political level and beyond. His advocacy for “robust action instead of the optimal action” was a fascinating impulse that stimulates our societal debates, especially in an era of multiple crises.

Uncertainty, as described, is a highly versatile concept. One of its facets that uniquely connects my professional and personal experiences is uncertainty as contingency. My research perspective is shaped by how historical actors deal with a fundamentally open space of possibilities. Openness is also a leading theme for the question of how we can effectively conduct interdisciplinary research on that topic.

Moreover, as an early career researcher and a citizen of our society, I am aware of the challenge of choosing from a vast array of potential actions. I try to explore this space of possibilities through curiosity and exploring different perspectives. In this context, I have always greatly benefited from the exchange of experiences and ideas, especially from others who have been in the same situation as me or who have been a step ahead in life or career. I am very grateful for that, particularly because the exchange has often sparked new ideas. However, this requires me to contribute my own observations and experiences to the dialogue, too, since I believe that only through mutual support can we learn to endure contingency and develop skills to identify possible pathways through this pool of options. Even though no concrete decision can be entirely certain, I think bringing individual expertise and experience into a collaborative setting is an excellent strategy to enable people to confidently choose a direction.