DIID Workshop for the NewOrder Project

On Tuesday and Wednesday, December 16 and 17, 2025, the participants of the NewOrder project met at Mickeln Castle for a DIID workshop. In the refreshing atmosphere of the castle, they discussed the current status and future development of the project. The DIID and HeiCAD supported the organization of this workshop.

After a welcome by workshop organizer Katarina Boland, the workshop began with a brief round of introductions. Stefan Dietze and Frank Marcinkowski then presented the interdisciplinary research project NewOrder, which deals with the effects of digitalization on the scientific system. Digitalization was described as a profound transformation process that not only changes the internal structure of science, but also reorders the relationship between science and society. Thematically, NewOrder deals with topics such as science communication in social media and the development of public trust in science. The interdisciplinary approach combines expertise from cognitive psychology, social and communication sciences, and computer science.

Sonja Utz and Eva Rudholzer then presented their research on role perception on social media. The study showed that role references in social media profiles (scientist, journalist, layperson) influenced the credibility of scientific statements, but were often only processed superficially. In an experimental feed, posts by laypeople were rated as less credible, while posts by journalists and scientists were rated similarly. When the role references were removed, this effect disappeared almost completely.

After a coffee break, Nicole Krämer presented several studies on the trustworthiness of scientists on social media under the title “Dr. Who? Science Communicators in Social Media.” The results show that academic titles and increased visibility promote the attribution of expertise and integrity, with female scientists being perceived as more competent overall than their male colleagues. Scientific evidence was considered more credible than anecdotal evidence, but had no direct influence on trust. Comments did not affect credibility, but scientific evidence in negatively charged comment sections led to an increase in trust. In addition, technical jargon can reduce understanding and thus credibility, but increases it when successfully understood.

Julia Mirkin concluded the series of presentations on the first day of the workshop with a philosophical-theoretical contribution on trust in science. Starting from a philosophical concept of trust that distinguishes between a truster and a trustee, she applied the concept to the relationship between citizens, scientists, and scientific knowledge. She argued that there is currently a shift in trust from science to pseudoscientific actors. To strengthen trust, she identified debunking and prebunking strategies as particularly effective on the part of the truster, while high-quality science communication and the avoidance of politicization of science were central on the part of scientists. The presentation sparked an intense discussion about the opportunities and risks of scientists' involvement in political decisions.

Katarina Boland concluded the first day of the workshop with a brief summary. The day ended in a convivial atmosphere with a dinner and mulled wine.

The second day of the workshop began with Sebastian Schellhammer's presentation of a work package on hyperpartisan headlines in scientific news articles. Using an annotated dataset and machine learning, he examined how scientific articles are used in journalistic articles and on social media. The results show that hyperpartisan headlines occur primarily in extreme outlets and on social media (in this case, Twitter). Thematically, news headlines mainly deal with papers on politics, elections, and public opinion (e.g., disinformation), with clear differences between left-wing and right-wing outlets.

Christian Koß and Frank Marcinkowski then discussed the role of preprints in the scientific and media system. As part of this, they conducted a nationwide survey of 1,100 scientists on the use of preprints in their work. Overall, this revealed a high willingness to publish preprints, although this varies greatly depending on the discipline. Preprints are more common in the natural sciences than in the humanities, for example. However, researchers are less concerned about damage to the scientific system itself through the use of preprints than about a loss of reputation in the public eye. Nevertheless, the term itself and the structures surrounding the use of preprints are very heterogeneous, which makes it difficult to compare disciplines.

After a short coffee break, Isabella Peters gave a keynote speech on past projects such as DESIVE², MeWiKo, and VOICES, which dealt with information behavior research, the scientific handling of disinformation, science communication, and the changed approach of journalism to the scientific system during and after the pandemic.

The day ended with a workshop to identify future steps and starting points for the NewOrder project. Participants primarily identified research ideas on the influence of hyperpartisanship on trust in science and journalism, as well as on the indication and effects of politicized science.

The workshop concluded with a feedback session in which participants highlighted the open atmosphere and intensive professional exchange. The topics and ideas discussed form a solid basis for further collaboration and the conceptual development of the project.