Studied Sociology, psychology, and communication studies in Dresden, Leipzig and Berlin where he graduated in sociology in 2007. From 2007 and 2010 he worked at the Fraunhofer Institute of Innovation and Systems Research in Karlsruhe in different projects on innovation policy and the governance of emerging technologies. In 2010, he began working as a teaching coordinator, designing and implementing the MA Program "Science Studies" which has been successfully introduced at HU Berlin in 2012. At the same time, he was also involved in a project on the regulation of data practices in German universities. Between December 2013 and 2016 he worked as a research associate in the DFG funded project "Reviews as legitimizing resource in emerging research fields" focusing on the case of synthetic biology. He was also involved in a project on core concepts, organizational and evaluation of Translational Medical Research funded by the Berlin Institute of Health. His research interests include: science and technology studies, innovation studies, network analysis, governance of biomedicine (with a specific focus on synthetic biology), as well as studies into digital scholarly practices. Clemens Blümel joined the DZHW in January 2017.
Clemens Blümel
Research Area Research System and Science Dynamics
Acting Head
- +49 30 2064177-31
- +49 30 2064177-99
List of projects
List of publications
On Top of the Hierarchy: How Guidelines Shape Systematic Reviewing in Biomedicine.Schniedermann, A., Blümel, C., & Simons, A. (2022).On Top of the Hierarchy: How Guidelines Shape Systematic Reviewing in Biomedicine. In S. Ehlers & S. Esselborn (Hrsg.), Evidence in Action between Science and Society - Constructing, Validating, and Contesting Knowledge (S. 102-126). New York: Routledge. |
MapOSR - A mapping review dataset of empirical studies on Open Science.Lasser, J., Schneider, J., Lösch, T., Röwert, R., Heck, T., ... & Skupien, S. (2022).MapOSR - A mapping review dataset of empirical studies on Open Science. F1000Research. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.121665.1 Abstract
Research that investigates respective researchers’ engagement in Open Science varies widely in the topics addressed, methods employed, and disciplines investigated, which makes it difficult to integrate and compare its results. To investigate current outcomes of Open Science research, and to get a better understanding on well-researched topics and research gaps, we aimed at providing an openly accessible overview of empirical studies that focus on different aspects of Open Science in different scientific disciplines, academic groups and geographical regions. In this paper, we describe a data set of studies about Open Science practices retrieved following a PRISMA approach to compile a literature review. |
Quantitative studies of science in Germany.Blümel, C., & Gauch, S. (2021).Quantitative studies of science in Germany. Scientometrics, 126(12) (online first). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04203-7 |
Editors between support and control by the digital infrastructure — Tracing the peer review process with data from an editorial management system.Hartstein, J., & Blümel, C. (2021).Editors between support and control by the digital infrastructure — Tracing the peer review process with data from an editorial management system. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics (6). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frma.2021.747562/full (Abgerufen am: 20.10.2021) (online first). Abstract
Many journals now rely on editorial management systems, which are supposed to support the administration and decision making of editors, while aiming at making the process of communication faster and more transparent to both reviewers and authors. Yet, little is known about how these infrastructures support, stabilize, transform or change existing editorial practices. By exploring process generated data from a publisher’s editorial management system, we investigate the ways by which the digital infrastructure is used and how it represents the different realms of the process of peer review. How does the infrastructure support, strengthen or restrain editorial agency for administrating the process? |
Strukturwandel durch Innovation: Über die performative Verschränkung und Aneignung zweier Streitbegriffe in der Lausitz.Blümel, C. (2021).Strukturwandel durch Innovation: Über die performative Verschränkung und Aneignung zweier Streitbegriffe in der Lausitz. In J. Herberg, J. Staemmler, & P. Nanz (Hrsg.), Wissenschaft im Strukturwandel: Die paradoxe Praxis engagierter Transformationsforschung (S. 163-189). München: oekom. |
What Synthetic Biology Aims At: Review Articles as Sites for Constructing and Narrating an Emerging Field.Blümel, C. (2021).What Synthetic Biology Aims At: Review Articles as Sites for Constructing and Narrating an Emerging Field. In K. Kastenhofer & S. Molyneux-Hodgson (Hrsg.), Community and Identity in Contemporary Technosciences (S. 65-84). Cham: Springer Nature (online first). Abstract
The analysis of scientific communities and collectives are central to STS and the sociology of science. Reviewing practices, that is, practices of ordering, defining or delineating scientific fields can be understood as an often neglected, yet prevailing textual practice of community building, particularly in novel and emerging research fields, such as synthetic biology. In this article, I aim to explore the structure and content of review articles as a dedicated scholarly genre in synthetic biology, focusing on the period between 2002 and 2012. |
Innovations in innovation policy: reconstructing the emergence, legitimation and dynamics of cluster policies in Germany.Blümel, C. (2020).Innovations in innovation policy: reconstructing the emergence, legitimation and dynamics of cluster policies in Germany. Innovation: The European Journal for Social Science Research, Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1798216 |
What Synthetic Biology Aims At: Review Articles as Sites for Constructing and Narrating an Emerging Field.Blümel, C. (2020).What Synthetic Biology Aims At: Review Articles as Sites for Constructing and Narrating an Emerging Field. In Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook. [preprint]. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/npfkv |
The Valuation of Online Science Communication: A Study Into the Scholarly Discourses of Altmetrics and Their Reception.Blümel, C., & Gauch, S. (2020).The Valuation of Online Science Communication: A Study Into the Scholarly Discourses of Altmetrics and Their Reception. Social Sciences Research Network. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3539133 |
Open Data in Biomedical Research: an exploratory study of perceptions and practices towards Open Data within a biomedical research facility: Berlin: DZHW.Blümel, C. (2019).Open Data in Biomedical Research: an exploratory study of perceptions and practices towards Open Data within a biomedical research facility: Berlin: DZHW. |
Open Science und Open Innovation: Neue Indikatoren für die Analyse des Wissenschafts- und Innovationssystems im Digitalen Zeitalter.Blümel, C. (2019).Open Science und Open Innovation: Neue Indikatoren für die Analyse des Wissenschafts- und Innovationssystems im Digitalen Zeitalter. Berlin: Stifterverband Discussion Paper 1/2019. |
List of presentations & conferences
Klausurtagung des DZHW-Forschungsclusters "Open Science".
Workshop Klausurtagung des DZHW-Forschungsclusters "Open Science", DZHW, Berlin. |
Grenzen und Chancen der Offenheit? Was Technologiesouveränität und Geopolitik für Innovation in Forschung und Technologie bedeuten.Blümel, C., Kessler, M. S., & Skupien, S. (2022).Symposium Grenzen und Chancen der Offenheit? Was Technologiesouveränität und Geopolitik für Innovation in Forschung und Technologie bedeuten im Rahmen der Veranstaltung Grenzen und Chancen der Offenheit, Stifterverband e.V., Deutsches Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung (DZHW), Berlin University Alliance, Center for Open and responsible Research (CORe), Berlin. |
Science Diplomacy - Quo Vadis? Konsequenzen geopolitischer Konflikte für (multilaterale) Wissenschaftsmobilität.Blümel, C., & Vögtle, E. M. (2022, September).Workshop Science Diplomacy - Quo Vadis? Konsequenzen geopolitischer Konflikte für (multilaterale) Wissenschaftsmobilität auf dem Workshop Science Diplomacy - Quo Vadis? Konsequenzen geopolitischer Konflikte für (multilaterale) Wissenschaftsmobilität, DZHW, Berlin, Deutschland. Abstract
The war in Ukraine has not only ushered in a "turning point" in military terms. This conflict also has far-reaching consequences for academic mobility and transnational academic cooperation - both for strategies and concepts in international research and academic policy and for research on academic exchange and multilateral cooperation between universities. In a joint workshop with representatives of science exchange organisations, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the Federal Foreign Office, parliamentarians and scientists, we discuss these consequences for science and politics. |
Die Wissenschaftsbefragung als zentrales Instrument der Abteilung Forschungssystem und Wissenschaftsdynamik des DZHW.Fabian, G., & Blümel, C. (2022, Juni).Die Wissenschaftsbefragung als zentrales Instrument der Abteilung Forschungssystem und Wissenschaftsdynamik des DZHW. Vortrag im Rahmen der Referatsrunde des Referats 415 des BMBF, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung,, Online-Veranstaltung. |
Digital contestations of openness: dynamics and frictions in digitized scholarly communication.Blümel, C. (2022, Mai).Digital contestations of openness: dynamics and frictions in digitized scholarly communication. Vortrag auf der Konferenz STS Conference Graz 2022, Graz, Österreich. Abstract
Open Science, it is often held, aims at enhancing the science and society relationship by making science more open, transparent, and accessible to the public, thereby restoring trust in scholarly knowledge production. Yet, in order to restore trust and to make science more accountable to the public, scholars are also expected to more openly communicate their ideas and findings to the public, exploring new channels for communication and interaction with wider audiences. This session aims to explore which frictions such practices of open communication face in the light digitalization. |
Rekonstruktion des Peer-Review-Prozesses mit Ereignisdaten aus einem Editorial Management System.Hartstein, J., & Blümel, C. (2022, März).Rekonstruktion des Peer-Review-Prozesses mit Ereignisdaten aus einem Editorial Management System. Vortrag auf der Tagung Frühjahrstagung 2022 der DGS-Sektion Netzwerkforschung, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Wuppertal. |
Focus on ‘successful research’ leads to underestimation of research collaboration.Hartstein, J., & Blümel, C. (2021, Oktober).Focus on ‘successful research’ leads to underestimation of research collaboration. Vortrag auf der Konferenz 4S Annual Meeting 2021, The Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), Toronto, Canada. Abstract
Science and Technology Studies, but also quantitative science studies carry a legacy of research evaluation, represented by concepts as diverse as the h-Index or Altmetrics, focussing on research output. Even research on research collaboration often aims at examining networks of (“successful”) knowledge production. Collaboration holds the promise to foster innovation – which is measured in scientometrics in terms of output. We argue, that digital traces of research in progress allow for gaining a more comprehensive picture of the research process and the research collaboration landscape. Failure does not invalidate research. |
