in Germany are above all the BIG FIVE<\/strong>composed of<\/p>\n On the one hand, these organisations have problems and conflicts like other business organisations, but on the other hand, they face the particular challenge of \"Good Scientific Practice (GWP)\u00a0<\/strong>to protect and promote.<\/p>\n BTW: Mediation also serves as a field of teaching and research in scientific organisations.<\/p>\n<\/div> (=fields of application for mediation and other conflict management procedures)<\/p>\n I.\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>Non-science-specific conflicts in scientific organisations<\/strong><\/p>\n This is where potential for conflict arises in scientific organisations because they are also organisations, e.g. when the scientific organisation acts as an economic market participant and, like other organisations, also has to deal with potential for conflict, e.g. with purchases, real estate transactions, i.e. conflicts with third parties, etc. II. \u00a0<\/strong>Science-specific conflicts<\/strong><\/p>\n Science-specific conflicts revolve around the problem of science organisations to ensure good scientific practice. The need for constructive handling of potential conflicts in this respect has increased with the changed framework conditions of scientific knowledge acquisition.<\/p>\n Here, the rules, procedures, etc. are at the centre of the conflict, which should enable and secure good science. The extent to which mediation can be used here is unclear, as the outcome of mediation does not appear to be completely open and context-free.<\/p>\n III Transitional and cross-cutting conflicts<\/strong> In some cases, such as at universities and colleges, there are conflict counselling centres that act as the first point of contact. Contact points<\/strong> and a Distribution function<\/strong> take over. It is not uncommon for these first points of contact to be located in the HR department. Of course, the legal department also serves as a point of contact, although a distribution function may be common practice here, but by no means a professionalisation or specific distribution of tasks is likely to have taken place.<\/p>\n<\/div> Conflict management at German scientific organisations has developed and professionalised over the past decades, primarily as a result of two scandals.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0Friedhelm Herrmann<\/a> and Marion Brach (research field)<\/strong><\/p>\n These two (then!) highly respected physicians and cancer researchers were found guilty of data manipulation and publication fraud in 94 cases. The „Task Force F.H.“<\/a>\u00a0demonstrated in its final report a systematic scientific fraud that until then had seemed almost unimaginable – the biggest case of fraud in recent medical history!<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0Baron zu Guttenberg<\/a> (doctoral field)<\/strong><\/p>\n In 2011, the former Federal Minister of Defence was stripped of his doctorate by his former university in Bayreuth after the websites of GuttenPlag Wiki<\/a>\u00a0the violations of the GWP were compiled. I. <\/strong>In Germany, conflicts and questions that arise in the area of good scientific practice and scientific integrity are dealt with centrally by the Ombudsman for the sciences<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The Ombudsman for the Sciences and Humanities is a Committee<\/strong>which is set up by the German Research Foundation – specifically: its Senate – and in Berlin<\/strong> has its office here. The committee works neutral, fair and confidential<\/strong>. The current spokesperson for the committee is Bayreuth legal scholar Prof Dr Stephan Rixen.<\/p>\n This body can In addition to the local ombudsman offices<\/strong> can be called.<\/p>\n II Specific tasks<\/strong> of the Ombudsman of the Sciences and Humanities:<\/p>\n III Guidelines for the work of the Ombudsman<\/strong> are in the Code of the German Research Foundation<\/strong> standardised. Link<\/a><\/p>\n IV. Annual Report 2018 of the Ombudsman for the Sciences and Humanities.<\/strong> Link<\/a> Similar to an arbitrator, the ombudsman acts impartially and fairly to resolve conflicts. Several ombudspersons in one body form an ombuds council. Occasionally, however, the term ombudsman (e.g. in the sciences) is retained; more on this in a moment.<\/p>\n In the 1970s, the institution spread around the world, but originated originally from Sweden<\/strong>where an ombudsman was appointed for the first time in 1809. The occasion was the democratic concerns of consumerism<\/strong>, enable citizens to vote<\/strong>e.g. for housing, water, heating and insurance. The aim here was to protect the state's changed fulfilment of tasks against arbitrariness. The ombudsman was developed for this purpose.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The term ombud comes from the Old Norse and means \"commission, authorisation\".<\/p>\n \ud83d\udcd6 Trentmann, F.: Herrschaft der Dinge. Die Geschichte des Konsums vom 15. Jhrdt. bis heute, M\u00fcnchen 2017, S. 745 ff.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> Conflict party 1, i.e. the person making the enquiry, takes over:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Mediator takes over:<\/strong><\/p>\n It is clear that every further course of action harbours risks and that ultimately there is no „he-solution“. Incidentally, this will be the case throughout the entire mediation process, if it takes place. Rather, it is about an appropriate and self-responsible regulation of the existing conflict potential between the conflict parties.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
B. Conflict landscapes in scientific organisations<\/h2>\n
\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\nConflicts in the border area between science-specific and non-science-specific areas of conflict, e.g. in the case of labour law conflicts<\/strong>where the tasks are research and scientific fields, but also in copyright conflicts (intellectual property) etc…, which by no means occur exclusively in scientific organisations, but are established here in the context of the GWP.<\/p>\nExcursus: Sins of German scientific history = challenge for safeguarding good scientific practice (GWP)<\/h2>\n
\nThe so-called „Guttenberg effect“ led to universities – also under public pressure – increasingly having to deal with violations of scientific rules. In the course of this, above all\u00a0Investigation commissions, promotion committees and ombudsman offices<\/strong>\u00a0was established, given increasing tasks and competences and moved into the focus of responsibility. In addition, the German Rectors' Conference<\/a>\u00a0in the same year recommendations for Quality assurance in the doctoral procedure<\/a> from.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>C. Structure and system of ombudsman offices in scientific organisations<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\nThe annual reports from previous years can be found here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>Excursus: Ombudsman and ombudsman boards<\/h2>\n
D. Recommendations for mediation practice in scientific organisations<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Concepts for mediation<\/h2>\n
\nWho accepts the request or invitation to mediation if Conflict Party 2 was not yet aware of Conflict Party 1's request for mediation?<\/div>\n\n
\n