German policy-makers have shown a growing interest in participatory research in recent years. In 2016, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, BMBF) published its first policy paper on participation (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 2016). The BMBF's participation strategy aims to create a broader social acceptance of research and innovation and to strengthen citizens' trust in research and its results. At the same time, results and innovations are to be better aligned with the needs and interests of society. This participation strategy already included a number of instruments and actions to promote participation, such as civic dialogues, participation platforms, participation projects and the funding of citizen science to foster cooperation between researchers and citizens in solving societal challenges. Since 2000, the Science Year initiative has been another strategic instrument. Each Science Year focuses on a scientific discipline or a current scientific theme and aims to facilitate an exchange between science and the public. The thematic focus for 2022 was participation and invited citizens to formulate their own research questions, as the BMBF is currently developing an updated participation strategy to take account of the changes and growing opportunities in this field. This new strategy is expected to be published in the summer of 2023 and also reflects a political agenda set by the coalition agreement between the governing parties in 2021, which stated that they intended to 'include science communication at all career stages and in the requirements for funding'. In addition, citizen science is to be used to 'increase the inclusion of societal perspectives in research' (SPD, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen und FDP 2021).

In line with this process, the German academic system has been developing institutions, projects and initiatives to respond to this call for more dialogue between science and society. From the point of view of German citizens, there is also a demand for participation in research (Maier et al. 2021) and the benefits of using participation as a research approach are manifold. However, interest in participatory research has not been as strong in all German research institutions or funding agencies as it has been in the German Federal Government or the BMBF.

A nuanced position on the use of participation as a research approach has recently been adopted by the Alliance of Science Organisations in Germany (Allianz der Wissenschaftsorganisationen). The statement issued by the Alliance in November 2022 – two months after this conference – highlighted the benefits of involving non-academic actors in the governance and planning of research, in the research process and in the dissemination of results, provided that this brings added value (Allianz der Wissenschaftsorganisationen 2022). Participation in science has, thus, gained momentum both scientifically and politically and, in Germany, the development of an official ministry strategy for its promotion is underway. It is, therefore, timely for the participatory research community to shape the issues and questions that will be relevant in the coming years.

With the aim of bringing together different actors from research, practice and politics, this conference on participatory research took place at the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin (MfN) on 26 September 2022. It was co-organised by MfN and Chemnitz University of Technology and funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, BMBF).

The conference had three overarching aims:

• Connecting the participatory research communities in Germany;
• Opening a discourse on participation in academia and highlighting the different perspectives, approaches and knowledge about participatory formats;
• Disseminating research results to the wider public (politics, civil society etc.) and the academic community.

The organisers invited a programme committee of German experts in the field of participation to shape the topics and chair the sessions of the conference. This committee of more than 20 researchers (see list of names in the Appendix) – mostly social scientists who study participation in science and research from different perspectives – has since developed into a lively network of experts that continues to meet on a monthly basis.

The conference brought together a diverse community of scientists, administrators, public engagement practitioners, research policy-makers and funding agencies from Germany. A total of 101 participants attended the event and took part in discussions throughout the day. Invitations were sent to various research groups and institutions in Germany that are already active in either research with participatory methods, such as transdisciplinary research or the citizen-science community. Disciplines represented in our distribution list included, but were not limited to, media studies, sociology, political science, psychology, urban planning, science and technology studies and design theory. The invitation was also snowballed. The aim of this invitation strategy was to reach out to a not yet well-connected community of scholars from different fields – and to create a network for the exchange of ideas on the current state and future of participation in academia in the German context.

The first panel discussion and talks were live-streamed, the recording is available on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/live/JrMD34MY0sQ) (Fig. 7) and archived on Zenodo (Schultka et al. 2022). Graphic recordings by Christine Oymann illustrate the different sections of the event (Figs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

Figure 1.  

The panel discussion on opportunities and limitations of participation in academia.

Figure 2.  

The keynote by Martina Schraudner (Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering; Center for Responsible Research and Innovation, Berlin, Germany) on participation as a method in science and research.

Figure 3.  

Working group 1: Mapping participation: positioning and differentiating participation in the German science system.

Figure 4.  

Working group 2: Who does not participate? Challenges for participation in science for and by society.

Figure 5.  

Working group 3: What are the benefits of transdisciplinarity and participation? Evaluating the effects of participatory and transdisciplinary research in science and society.

Figure 6.  

Working group 4: Participation in science: an international perspective.

The conference website is still available. Four copies of the conference website are archived at https://archive.org/ : www.museumfuernaturkunde.berlin/de/wissenschaft/chancen-und-grenzen-der-partizipation-der-wissenschaft

Additionally, most of the website's content, for example, the original programme and the list of the programme committee members, are included in this publication in Suppl. materials 1, 2.

Johannes Vogel (Director General of the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin; MfN) and Elisabeth von Uslar, (Head of Sub-Department 11 Innovation and Transfer Policy; Federal State Cooperation of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research; BMBF) welcomed the audience on site and online.

The conference was divided into a triad of:

1. a high-level panel discussion that allowed different perspectives to be heard;
2. a keynote speech on participation as a scientific method; and
3. two workshop sessions based on the previous inputs that provided an opportunity for conference attendees to discuss the most pressing issues that cut across all disciplines dealing with participation in academia.

The workshops were organised into four working groups, chaired by experts and covering the following topics:

1. the understanding and value of participation in Germany;
2. the impact of participation in research and society and its measurability;
3. how participatory research can promote social dialogue and the integration of under-represented groups; and
4. how to compare and learn from international developments (see working groups in 3).

This report summarises the main outcomes and discussions of the conference. The original programme is provided in the supplementary material (Suppl. material 1). The authors were members of the conference programme committee (Suppl. material 2) and workshop chairs and reflect on the conference, outstanding issues and possible future work.

The conference opened with a high-level panel discussion on values and limits of participation formats in academia from the science-policy perspective in Germany. The four panellists represented relevant institutions in research funding and science policy: The German Bundestag, German Research Foundation (DFG), the Leibniz Association and the 'Stifterverband für die deutsche Wissenschaft'. The panel including Alexandra Busch, Professor for Archaeology and Director General of Leibniz-Zentrum für Archäologie, Kai Gehring, Member of the Bundestag and Chair of the Committee on Education, Research and Technology Assessment, Karin Jacobs, Professor in Physics at Saarland University and Vice President of the German Research Foundation and Volker Meyer-Guckel, Secretary General and Chairman of the Board of the Stifterverband, was moderated by Lisa Ruhfus and discussed issues around the value, recognition, funding and limitations of participation in academia.

One of the questions addressed during the panel was which advantages participation in academia can have for democratic processes and if and where there are limits to these potentials in different scientific disciplines. Additionally, the panellists discussed what role participation in academia could play in transformation processes in society and science. Another important issue during the discussion was the question whether participation should be implemented as a performance indicator for scientific projects. Some concern was expressed as to how best to ensure that academic freedom is respected and to what extent and how to involve citizens. Academic freedom is protected by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, Art. 5, (3) 'The arts and sciences, research and teaching are to be free[...]'. Protecting this right is, therefore, an important democratic responsibility. Some panellists emphasised that this free choice of research topic is of great importance for German research institutions. On the other hand, citizen participation can provide an additional, broader perspective and a new source of ideas and the inclusion of participatory approaches does not in itself affect the scope and direction of scientific research. Citizen participation can lead to new and innovative research questions that might not otherwise have been considered. While applied science and research, for example, has long benefited from and used participatory approaches, there is still room for discussion in other research fields about the feasible and desirable extent of participation by non-academics.

Following the panel discussion, Martina Schraudner (Scientific Director of the Fraunhofer Center for Responsible Research and Innovation and Professor at the Technische Universität Berlin) summarised the state of research on participation in academia and its added value for the various actors involved. Some of her findings are outlined in this section.

Against the backdrop of the major transformations associated with climate and sustainability goals as well as digitalisation, the societal demands on and the self-image of science itself are changing (Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (European Commission) and Mazzucato 2018, Schütz et al. 2019). While participatory approaches have been in use in the Western world – for example, in companies via open innovation or in infrastructure projects as described in the VDI Guideline 7000 (VDI 2015) – since the turn of the millennium, they are still rather in their infancy in science, maturing under the catchwords transdisciplinary research or Mode 3 knowledge (Gibbons et al. 1994, Carayannis et al. 2012). Yet, it is precisely these approaches, combined with science communication or public engagement approaches, that can help not only to inform different social groups about design options for the future at an early stage, but also to integrate their perspectives and opinions into design processes.

Participation counteracts demarcation and fragmentation. It achieves more than the transfer of information and knowledge by allowing academic and non-academic actors to co-develop target images of a desirable future and to strive for them together. To achieve that, science must be committed to providing information at an early stage and on an ongoing basis, i.e. not only at the end of a research project, when it comes to disseminating research results. Rather, it is a matter of communicating and engaging with society in such a way that impulses and reactions from society can be incorporated into one's own research. An ongoing dialogue between science, society and policy likely instils a sense of mutual trust and shared responsibility in jointly addressing current challenges/problems. This applies to a wide range of time horizons: from citizen-science approaches in which scientists and citizens work side by side on research projects, to future fields of innovation in which ethical guard rails are developed or applications are explored, to future goals that raise entirely new questions for science and research.

None of these approaches calls the principles of science and research into question – but they are unfamiliar practices to scientists and to large parts of the population. Scientists must reach out to society with new methods and approaches and a new self-image, informing society and involving it in transdisciplinary approaches. Ways must be found to recognise and overcome knowledge silos (Blackwell et al. 2009), also between disciplines, in order to get people from diverse contexts and backgrounds interested and engaged in new topics at an early stage, even outside of science (Collingridge 1980). The way to achieve this lies ahead.

At the conference, there was a consensus in favour of a broad concept of participatory research: participatory approaches can have epistemological benefits for all research projects, as long as the format chosen allows the modes of participation to be tailored to the specific needs of the discipline and research question. Not every research project needs to apply a co-creation approach. Nevertheless, initiating dialogue – even at a very basic level, such as a round table on a project's research findings – is a step towards a more democratic understanding of what research in academia could encompass. The community, with all its different backgrounds, shared a common mindset on promoting the involvement of non-academic actors in research.

The following common benefits of participatory approaches in science were identified, amongst others, at the conference:

1. democratisation of research for societal change;
2. empowerment of citizens;
3. evidence-based policy development;
4. improved scope and quality of data through researchers' access to more diverse datasets and innovations that are better adapted to users' perspectives;
5. better solutions to "wicked" societal problems by involving different actors and integrating their knowledge;
6. better insights into citizens' hopes and fears; and
7. increased access to non-formal training in research methods for citizens.

Many of the discussions in the working groups highlighted similar issues and needs for participatory research approaches in academia, such as the need for:

1. definitions and common concepts;
2. shared methodologies for implementing participation across disciplines and national borders;
3. advocacy for more appropriate working conditions and funding for researchers willing to engage with the public; and
4. appropriate evaluation that is able to show the benefits of participatory approaches – even if these become apparent only after a considerable time lag.

The conference identified the converging goals of participation researchers as:

1. to better understand the status quo of participatory research in Germany;
2. to identify factors that increase the quality of participation;
3. to reach new audiences with adapted methods; and
4. more generally to promote the diversity of projects and the depth of engagement for tailored participation in science.

One of the main aims of the conference was to map the participatory research landscape in Germany in order to understand and share knowledge about the definitions and terminology of the converging communities (e.g. citizen science, transdisciplinary research). To create such an overview, more long-term and overarching structures or points of contact for available data are needed. As discussed in working group 1, one of the main challenges in mapping the participatory landscape in Germany is the diversity of backgrounds and terminologies of the disciplines using participation, which makes people- or project-based mapping difficult – the different disciplines and approaches, such as citizen science, responsible research and innovation or transdisciplinary research, provide a better overview of the field.

Despite coming from various disciplinary backgrounds – be it practical or theoretical research on participation – the researchers who gathered at the conference shared a unifying objective: to improve the efficacy, targeting and accountability of participatory research. Future research in this field should thus prioritise the development of new adapted formats, alongside considerations of equitable and inclusive conditions for all research project participants.

Evaluation and assessment of outcomes and impacts has to further be researched. Participation is a complex process that cannot be measured by classical scientometrics measurements alone. There is a need for appropriate evaluation methods that are able to show the outcomes and benefits of participatory approaches – even if these only become apparent after a considerable delay. Quality criteria for the evaluation of bottom-up initiatives have to be developed as well – criteria that are truly able to capture and measure the societal impact of participatory projects. To this end, project-specific participatory quality criteria and indicators are still required in the field.

The discussion in working group 4 revealed that, in particular, public engagement and science communication are, far from being bidirectional, for academia and the public in Germany. The deficit model is mostly still in place – if research is communicated to the public at all. The conference attendees identified a need for more research comparing participation in academia internationally, as well as its evaluation across disciplines, if bidirectional communication and the development towards mode three knowledge production (Carayannis et al. 2016) is to be promoted in Germany.

The conference was not only an opportunity to network within the participatory research community, but also to reflect on the conditions under which participatory research can best take place. In policy, research approaches using participation are increasingly accepted for many of their benefits. This became visible both in the panel discussion statements and in the aforementioned strategy paper published by the Alliance later that year: The Alliance of Science Organisations in Germany (Allianz der Wissenschaftsorganisationen 2022) here expressed their commitment to actively support participation in academia where it promises added value for both research and society. At the same time, they highlighted that, for participation to bring such added value to research, several conditions must be met: participatory methods are not suitable for all types of research and not for all researchers. It was noted that not every field of research can be expected to use participation to the same extent or in the same way - emphasising the difference between applied and basic research. At the conference, it was generally agreed that mandating citizen participation in research is not appropriate for all projects and research. It was, however, stressed that researchers and scientists who do engage in participatory research make a valuable contribution and their efforts should be recognised, for example, in the recruitment of academic staff or the appointment of professors. The fact that the benefits of participating in academia do indeed require a significant investment of time and money was highlighted several times during the conference. The additional effort researchers make in a participatory process beyond their core research should, therefore, not only be recognised during recruitment, but lead to adapted funding schemes in Germany. Moreover, these benefits cannot only be created by researchers themselves. New professions specialising in the community work required in participatory research projects, such as public engagement or community managers, are emerging – but funding for and recognition of such positions are still scarce.

The conference was a first step towards finding a common voice and forum to discuss participatory research from multiple angles. It successfully brought together researchers, scientists, practitioners, policy-makers and funders from diverse disciplines, ranging from medicine and mobility to robotics and renewable energies. The world is full of complex and interconnected problems, known as wicked problems, that pose significant challenges for society. In order to navigate these challenges, it is important to harness the power of science and technology. One consensus that emerged was the importance of inclusivity. In order to effectively tackle these challenges, we must ensure that everyone has a voice and a role to play in the process.

The discussion on finding a common understanding of participatory research and mapping the German participatory landscape led further to the conclusion that a narrow definition of participation in academia would do more harm than good to a scientific community that wants to truly embrace the diversity of research and research methods.

A number of government representatives attended the event and received documentation after the conference. We believe the message was clear: more funding, recognition and training are needed for both practitioners and academic researchers in the field of participation, now that the political support and commitment is strong.