The study is published on the repository of the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt:

https://doi.org/10.17904/ku.opus-957

“Science as ideology”, “expertocracy”, “abuse of science” – the coronavirus pandemic has further intensified the already existing skepticism towards science in parts of the public. Anti-liberal, anti-democratic and system-destroying forces in particular are fueling the image that science is steering politics with a supposed “single truth” in order to push through their own interests. This perception often reflects misunderstandings or a lack of knowledge about the actual role and communication of scientific institutions. Universities and research organizations find themselves in a field of tension: they are not only mediators of knowledge, but also actors who have to legitimize and position themselves in an increasingly polarized society.

How do these institutions communicate with politicians? Is scientific policy advice the neutral communication of research findings or rather the strategic representation of interests? And how can universities and research institutions effectively raise their voices in order to both strengthen trust in science and help shape political decisions? In view of the existing research gap, pursuing these questions is not only relevant to the scientific debate. The answers are also essential for those responsible for communication and the management of universities and research institutions.

The dissertation examines the political representation of interests of universities and non-university research organizations and their alliances in Germany. The focus is on the extent to which these institutions use strategic communication to represent their interests in politics. Science lobbying is viewed as a sub-area of strategic organizational communication, embedded in social, organizational and individual levels of action.

An integrative theoretical concept combines communication science approaches with social theory perspectives. The resulting model of a “lobbying cycle” describes political advocacy as a cyclical process that includes analytical classification, strategic decision-making and operational implementation. Empirically, the work is based on a qualitative preliminary study with 18 guided interviews and a quantitative survey of communication managers from 645 universities and scientific institutions, of which 100 questionnaires were evaluated.

The results show a heterogeneous picture: While few institutions proceed strategically and professionally as lobbying actives, many fail as lobbying passives due to organizational hurdles. The majority of universities and research organizations officially reject lobbying, although they de facto represent their own interests. A key finding is that communication with politicians is often the sole responsibility of the institution's management, while those responsible for communication are rarely involved. There is also a lack of strategic planning and internal coordination.

The picture is also mixed when it comes to university associations: Only a quarter of those surveyed classify their most important association as a lobbying organization, and the majority is dissatisfied with its work. Resource deficits such as a lack of offices in state capitals, insufficient budgets and inadequate networking measures make it difficult to represent interests effectively. Associations are also often dominated by the management of the member organizations, whose self-interests hinder the strategic orientation of the associations. This structural imbalance means that the voices of the associations are barely heard in politics.

The study highlights the relevance of lobbying as a social function and calls for greater integration into organizational communication and the professionalization of associations. It provides specific recommendations for action in this regard. The study concludes with an appeal for more empirical research on the effects of lobbying and its perception in politics and the public.