The presentation investigates how the word Partizi­pation (partici­pation) is used in Germany and Switzer­land, and what conceptual differences between the two countries can be derived from this usage. Drawing on various corpora—in particular corpora of parlia­mentary debates from Germany and Switzer­land—the hypo­thesis is tested that the concept of ‘partici­pation’ functions more as a popular promise in Germany than in Switzer­land. This hypo­thesis is based on the assump­tion that the many elements of direct demo­cracy in the Swiss political system make the promise of increased partici­pation less compelling for Swiss politi­cians and voters than for their German counter­parts.
To examine this hypo­thesis, the following sub-hypo­theses are tested in the selected corpora:

• The word is used more frequently in Germany than in Switzer­land.
• The word is used more frequently by members of populist parties in Germany than in Switzer­land.
• The referent of the word (i. e., what the word refers to in a specific context) is more positively evaluated and more frequently claimed in Germany than in Switzer­land.
• The word is applied to a broader range of groups and domains in Germany than in Switzer­land.
• The word is embedded differently in argumen­tation in Germany and in Switzer­land.
  While not all sub-hypo­theses can be confirmed, significant concep­tual differences between the two coun­tries can still 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 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.