I am connected to Bielefeld University personally and professionally. After my undergraduate studies in Saabrücken I was attracted by the large and only Faculty of Sociology in Europe at Bielefeld University which offered a large variety of approaches taught by outstanding sociology scholars. It was also a formative experience since I learned about concepts such as ‘time’ and ‘risk’ which became influential in sociological debate (Beck 1986, 1988; Luhmann 1985, 1991; Douglas & Wildavsky 1982). Amongst the many scholars in particular the analytical sharpness of Niklas Luhmann and Franz Xaver Kaufmann but also the historical work of Reinhard Koselleck influenced my work and approach to risk and uncertainty as analytical concepts as well as discourse semantic changes. 

I am therefore still connected to the scholarship in systems theory and the Institute for World Society Studies as well as Historical Semantics and the corpus/computational analysis of social change (compare SFB 1288).

Indeed, having lived and worked at Bielefeld University I am also emotionally attached to the central university building (I consider as “the starship”) providing everything what is needed to focus on research. As a research assistant, from my office I had a good view on the Centre of Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF), which was already in the early days an indication for the innovative interdisciplinary research culture at Bielefeld University. With the University being placed close to the “Teuto” (Teutoburger Wald) I still enjoy walking through the woods whenever I find the time when visiting.

 

 

Uncertainty is a key concept in my research. When I initiated two research networks on risk studies within the Europeans Sociological Association (2005) and the International Sociological Association (2006) I was keen to find the key concepts which could hold together the complex scholarship on risk studies and would characterise a broader sociological rather than a psychological, economical or technological approach to the future. At this point the Sociology of Risk and Uncertainty (SoRU) was born to see risk in the context of uncertainty, and uncertainty in the context of its social relevance when something of value is at stake (this includes possible harm as well as gains but the recognition of the relevance of the unknown for the presence). In this way risky uncertainty characterises decision making situations I am interested in. These contrast with people following worn-out paths of routines without further consideration. 

 

It is here where my recent work on everyday life engagement with risky uncertainty connects with uncertainty studies. In the social realm the modernisation process contributed to a significant shift in the ways how uncertainty is understood and managed. A key element has been the development of calculative technologies and most recently the advancement in computer technology and advancing social digitisation. At the same time ‘hope’, ‘faith’ and ‘ideology’ remain powerful resources of social enchantment which seem also necessary for managing risky uncertainty. The comparatively abstract forms of reasoning related to social rationalisation and enchantment are not sufficient to understand people’s engagement with risky uncertainty in everyday life. Here the subjectivation of detached forms of knowledge are required to understand lifeworld forms of reasoning represented by concepts such as ‘trust’, ‘intuition’ and ‘emotions’ (Schulz & Zinn 2023). 

 

 

The Centre of Uncertainty studies is an exciting hub which opens opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration and innovative conceptual advancement. There are three areas of research I expect to advance in the Centre for Uncertainty Studies. 

 

(1)   In many ways the different disciplines involved in CeUS represent different understandings of uncertainty which are influential in public debates. I am interested in the imaginaries and research practices through which my colleagues construct uncertainty as a research object as well as a research reality to be managed. On this basis I would like to further develop an outline of the sociology of uncertainty and risk, which helps to specify and understand how social forces combine or amalgamate in the social navigation of uncertainty.

 

(2)   In a more concrete conceptual enterprise, I want to further develop a phenomenology of uncertainty and risk, which is capable of making sense of the processes of the individual and institutional engagement with risky uncertainties. This would follow developments in social science disciplines which not only study modes of engagement with uncertainty such as trust, intuition, emotions, and hope but how such modes inform the research process itself.

 

(3)   The broad methodological expertise within CeUS allows developing digital resources and methods to analyse the societal understanding and responses to risky uncertainties such as pandemics, climate change related new social challenges (e.g., heat waves and other weather events). I would like to advance the collaboration between different disciplines such as linguistics, sociology, history and digital humanities more broadly and mathematically trained modelers to develop powerful research instruments (conceptually and technically) to better understand historical developments as well as the meaning and effects of increasing societal digitisation.

 

 

The social management of risk and uncertainty relies on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches. These support collaborative learning which is crucial for producing good and socially acceptable outcomes. In this context my sociological approach to uncertainty also profits from connecting to other research such as in psychology, media studies, health studies, history, linguistics, and philosophy. Insights from risk perception studies as well as decision making research has informed my studies as well as linguistic research instruments for the analysis of discourse semantic changes of risk. Conceptual insights from philosophy are informing my theoretical work on a phenomenology of risk and uncertainty as well as empirical insights from environmental sociology, science and technology studies, disaster research, media studies, health studies and youth studies and many more. Thus, being strongly rooted in sociology my research and theorizing is informed and connects to other disciplines to show its relevance across disciplines as much as getting inspired by related work from different disciplinary perspectives. 

 

The conference became quite exciting when I realised to what extent my own conceptual work on ‘rational’, ‘non-rational’ and ‘in-between’ modes of engaging with risk and uncertainty can connect to the empirical work presented by many of the participants considering trust, emotions, hope and other ways of engaging with uncertainty.

Admittedly, I was not able to connect to every contribution in the same way. However, I was surprised and thrilled by the large number of disciplines I could connect to such as conflict studies and historical studies. 

 

 

My approach as well as my professional interest relate to what Greek philosophers might have positioned in the realm of “phronesis”. This seems to me a decent way to engage with risky uncertainties which cannot be easily mastered by the application of technique or differentiated knowledge systems but requires practical wisdom which considers ethical and normative standards as well as different forms of (non-)knowledge in research, professional decision making and the life world.