The presentation explores how the word “participation” is used in Germany and Switzer­land and what conceptual differences between Germany and Switzer­land can be derived from this usage. Based on various corpora, in particular corpora of German and Swiss parlia­mentary debates, quanti­tative and quali­tative discourse and conceptual analyses are used to test the hypo­thesis that the term ‘partici­pation’ is far more of a popular promise in Germany than in Switzer­land. This is suspected because the more pronounced direct-democratic elements of the Swiss political system could make the promise of greater partici­pation less appealing to Swiss politi­cians and voters than to German ones.
Specifically, the following sub-hypotheses are tested on the corpora used:
SH1: The word is used more frequently in Germany than in Switzer­land.
SH2: The word is used more frequently in Germany by represen­tatives of populist parties than in Switzerland.
SH3: What is referred to by this word is valued more highly and demanded more frequently in Germany than in Switzer­land.
SH4: The word is used in Germany for more target groups and areas than in Switzer­land.
SH5: The word is embedded differently in argu­ments in Germany than in Switzer­land.
The results obtained suggest that, while by no means all sub-hypotheses are correct, important conceptual differences between the two countries can never­theless be identified.

The demand for a (further) opening of the scientific system to greater partici­pation by non-scientists no longer seems to require justifi­cation. At least the ubiquitous demands for and funding of measures to strengthen partici­pation in research, teaching, and science communi­cation suggest this conclusion. But how does the scientific system deal with the demand for (more) partici­pation? As it has already been noted (e.g., Dickel & Franzen 2016, Collins & Evans 2002), the discursive framing of the demand for greater partici­pation in the scientific system is parado­xical in several respects. 1) The demand placed on the scientific system, in the sense of a functionally differen­tiated social subsystem, to disrupt its boundaries from within, is, firstly, paradoxical in itself from a systems and differen­tiation theory perspective: System boundaries arise from communi­cative requirements and not from normative desires. 2) On the one hand, the policy-related objectives of this opening – such as increasing diversity, enhancing the legitimacy of scientific knowledge, or boosting (econo­mically exploitable) innovative capacity – cannot be achieved per se, and certainly not logically, simply by extending scientific practices to non-scientists. 3) Thirdly, and this is the empirical focus of the presen­tation, the conse­quences for the practice of scientists that can be observed in response to this demand are paradoxical. These include, among others: the reinterpre­tation and delimi­tation of the principle of universality, feigning partici­pation, externali­zation to professional service providers, and the professionali­zation of the own partici­pation stake­holders.

In my talk, I examine the cultural logics and historical trajec­tories of partici­pation as a central promise of so-called “new” media and their actuali­zations, ongoing promises, and failures in contem­porary media culture. Drawing on perspec­tives from media and cultural studies, I analyze how digital platforms have framed partici­pation as both a normative ideal and a user imperative, while simulta­neously shaping, structuring, and often under­mining the very practices they purport to facilitate.
Building on foundational work by, for instance, Nick Couldry (Why Voice Matters, 2010) and José van Dijck (The Culture of Connectivity, 2013), I analyze how partici­pation has been embedded in platfor­mized environ­ments that promote user agency while simultaneously limiting it through technical, commercial, and discursive infrastruc­tures. Notably, through the lens of comment cultures and everyday media practices, I reflect on how early Web 2.0 promises of empower­ment and democra­tization have yielded patterns of fatigue, instrumen­talization, and ambi­valence. Rather than inter­preting partici­pation as either emanci­patory or unsuccessful, the discourse situates it as a historically grounded media practice—one that is shaped by inter­face design, platform gover­nance, and evolving user norms. Following Zizi Papacharissi (Affective Publics, 2015) and Tanja Carstensen (Digitali­sierung und soziale Ungleichheit, 2020), I also emphasize the affective and socio-material dimen­sions of partici­pation.
Drawing on examples from diverse contexts, social media formats, and partici­patory genres, I endeavor to critically reflect on the contra­dictions and limitations of partici­patory media cultures. Ultimately, the discourse poses the question: What remains of the partici­patory promise in a media land­scape increasingly charac­terized by algorithmic visibility, frag­mented publics, and the fatigue of perpetually being invited to engage?

One of the central tasks of schools is to educate students to become demo­cratic citizens. In this sense, partici­pation, as an essential element of demo­cracy, should also be practised in schools. However, the ideal image of schools as miniature demo­cracies, desired by some, is structurally at odds with their mostly bureau­cratic organisa­tional logic. This talk explores the expec­tations placed on demo­cratic and civic educational elements in schools, such as student represen­tation and class councils, and, based on recent empirical research, discusses the practical challenges linked to improving partici­pation, particularly among students.

In my talk, I reflect some premises of participatory research in light of an ongoing Horizon Europe research and inno­vation action (NewWorkTech, 2024–2027) aimed at producing new empirical knowledge, theoretical insight and practical solutions for increased capacities of persons with dis/ability using techno­logies and interactive practices in the world of work. As the project builds on the recog­nition of the dis/ability move­ment (“Nothing about us, without us”) as well as on the ethno­metho­dolo­gical and ethno­graphic inquiry of lived experiences of partici­pants and the participant-relevant under­standing of social order, engaging persons with dis/ability, but equally other agents as well, in various contexts of working life has been vital. I present practical examples of partici­patory research from the project’s data collection phase, with an outlook to collabo­rative data analysis.

The invitation to “save a life” of a blood cancer patient through registering as a blood stem cell (bone marrow) donor, is a highly normative one that’s been invoked by stem cell registries since the 1970s (e.g., by the UK’s Anthony Nolan registry, the US National Marrow Donor Program, Germany’s DKMS) to “recruit” people as potential stem cell donors. Since the 1990s, a perceived lack of racially minori­tised donors (considered more gene­tically suitable for racially minori­tised patients) has prompted specia­lised recruit­ment practices that invoke ideas of racial difference to prompt acts of partici­pation—more an invita­tion to “save the life of some­body like you” rather than simply “safe a life”—what I call ‘racialising recruit­ment’. In the paper, I unpack how these appeals for partici­pation are made, and with what moral implica­tions, through empirical detail from the UK recruit­ment context collected over a decade of ethno­graphic work with different actors in the field.
The talk also provides texture to the limits of this recruit­ment work. Stem cell donor recruit­ment is an interesting example of partici­pation’s contin­gency. Regis­tration is, in effect, a promise: I can register as a potential donor today, only to decline when finally invited to physically donate at a future time if found to be a patient’s ‘match’. Thus, to ‘partici­pate’ at one moment is no guarantee of ‘partici­pation’ in a future moment. This so-called “attrition”, effectively reneging on the promise, is statis­tically more likely amongst racially minori­tised donors, who are then framed as ‘less reliable’. This calls into question the efficacy of racialising recruit­ment which has demon­stratively improved registrant numbers whilst attrition has also increased. As such, racialising recruit­ment may not generate the partici­pation that it appears so effective at doing.

The workshop provides interactive insights into the “Your Most Popular” project, within the frame­work of which a seminar was conducted with university students and fifth-grade students from a comprehensive school. The seminar concept was based on the principle of partici­patory research: university students and school students jointly developed a concept for collecting data on the question “Your Most Popular”. Guided by students, school pupils interviewed passers-by about what they consider popular, undesirably popular, or even problema­tically popular. In the work­shop, the results will be presented and reflected upon with regard to their partici­patory develop­ment. Students, accom­panying teachers, and pupils will also be present.