Introduction

Technological developments and achievements of engineering in the common understanding of digitization have progressed to an unprecedented scale. The preconditions and processes of their enculturation are so advanced that digital technologies are inextricably entangled with everyday processes. In line with Felicitas Macgilchrist (2021) and other colleagues, we argue that this observation in itself leads us to a concept of postdigitality which shapes social practices in the professional contexts of research, teaching, and learning as well as in daily life and the private spheres of subjects. The deep entanglements between humans, technology, and society bring us to the further assumption that the digital cannot be considered separately from subjects: practices are inscribed and thus part of them (Macgilchrist, 2021).

We can therefore assume that different educational contexts, such as Higher Education, have already been affected fundamentally by digitization, even if organizations of Higher Education are only just starting to reflect on this for themselves—slowly, and not least as one result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our chapter aims to take a closer look at postdigital research practices, not only of professional researchers themselves but consequently of students as major shareholders in Higher Education and those engaging in research-based learning. This chapter is thus driven by a reflective and critical approach to digital technology. We assume that participation in Higher Education, learning, and critical engagement with academic practices also support participation in a postdigital society. Our understanding of participation includes a critical and reflexive mindset and attitude. We believe that Higher Education is assigned the task to enable learners to participate critically in a postdigital society. This includes preparing students for critical problem-solving and decision-making as well as valuing and understanding different ways of doing and thinking while being able to critically question and reflect on them (Wals & Jickling, 2002; Zobl, 2018). Being able to participate in education and in social and cultural life means being aware of postdigitality and able to act and think critically and reflectively. This chapter will therefore reflect on the conditions and significance of Higher Education today, considering how academic practices are formed under these aspects. Since we attribute great importance to these practices in all areas of a postdigital society, our primary research question asks: How should Higher Education be constituted so that students can participate in a postdigital society?

In response, the second section of the chapter elaborates on the characteristics of our culture of postdigitality, identifying the requirements and key practices demanded of students in order to participate in this postdigital culture. We show that organizations such as Higher Education institutions can make a decisive effort to support the participation opportunities of their students in the long term. Subsequently, the third section makes reference to a conceptional work about research(-based learning) practices (Grüntjens et al., 2022) as well as the academic discourse on Higher Education, research-based learning, and postdigitality. In consequence, we distinguish and discuss the research practices of networking, reflecting, researching, and organizing and link them with the characteristics of a culture of postdigitality. We conclude by considering how Higher Education can contribute to student participation through learning and experiencing academic practices.

Participation in a Postdigital Society and the Role of Higher Education

It is impossible to step out of a postdigital culture (Cramer, 2014). Postdigitality is performatively enacted because new practices emerge as part of the shift from analog to digital. A new horizon, framework, or space of possibility emerges that defines what is important and unimportant, and the subject is constituted as a participating part of it (Stalder, 2021). This also involves changes in the conditions of perception (Jörissen, 2020), so that the term or concept of postdigitality refers to the current society and culture, which are deeply interwoven with the digital. Within the new (postdigital) space of possibility, new cultural orders and practices exist and performatively shape postdigitality as culture (Macgilchrist, 2021). In a postdigital society, these depend not only on political conditions, capital, and various resources but also on key competencies, characteristics, and the sociocultural backgrounds of subjects. In short, digital technologies are constitutive of cultural practices and processes of subjectivation (Allert & Asmussen, 2017).

According to Felix Stalder (2021), postdigitality can be defined by non-linearity, associative links, simultaneity, or an independence of context and time. Despite his earlier work (e.g. Stalder, 2016) deliberately distinguishing the concept of digitality from that of postdigitality, Stalder himself sees these two concepts as closely knit. He points out that both reject the distinction between “old” and “new” media or a culture “before” and “after” technological artefacts. However, for his own analysis, Stalder (2016) declines to use the term postdigitality: by dispensing with the prefix “post-” he seeks to avoid implying that the developments associated with digitality—which shapes culture and society—are already over, or at least that we have understood what they are all about and can move on to something new. From Stalder’s perspective, the opposite is true: technological artefacts are now establishing themselves, assuming a concrete form, and the meanings of technological developments are becoming visible (Stalder, 2016).

Nevertheless, in our chapter, we wish to uphold the concept of postdigitality and consider Stalder’s understanding of a culture of digitality applicable to our thoughts on participation in a postdigital society. We do not use the prefix “post-” to suggest that the discussion about prefigurations of digital technologies is complete or obsolete. Rather, we understand the prefix as a critical positioning that enables a conceptual approach to the interconnectedness of digital technologies and culture from an explicitly critical and reflective perspective. As Grünberger (2021) points out, the term postdigitality refers to the (increasingly less noticeable) inscription of the digital in all contexts of life, practices, institutions, and artefacts. Furthermore, the prefix “post-” does not refer to something “after” digitality, but rather—as in the case of postcolonialism—its continuation. For these reasons, our understanding of postdigitality fits with Stalder’s concept of digitality.

In this dynamic and complex postdigital cultural space defined by non-linearity, associative links, and simultaneity, orientation is needed to foster reflectiveness and collaboration (Stalder, 2021). In (cultural and educational) academic discourses, the term postdigitality is also used in critical analysis of assumptions of the digital (e.g. Cramer, 2014; Knox, 2019; Macgilchrist, 2021; Murray, 2020). In education science contexts, the term is used, firstly, to draw attention to subtle cultural shifts with “its mutation into new power structures, less obvious but no less pervasive” (Cramer, 2014, p. 13), that have a deep impact on ecology, economy, and sociality. Secondly, the term expresses a critical point of view which neither exclusively rejects nor advocates the relationship between people and technology but falls in line with our understanding of the requirements for participation—for example, a critical mindset and stance—in a postdigital society. Post- and neocolonial developments and discourses (e.g. post-communism, post-feminism, postcolonialism) and inevitable consequences of postdigitality for all spheres of life and societies are included (Cramer, 2014; Grünberger, 2021).

To address the conditions and opportunities for enabling students to learn how to participate in a postdigital society, we have to take a closer look at significant key practices in such a society. Stalder (2016) identifies (with regard to his key term digitality) three basic patterns or forms of digitality that in our understanding also apply to postdigitality. Key practices for participation can be derived from these, showing under which conditions participation is possible in the postdigital condition. Stalder (2016) distinguishes between referentiality (1), communality (2), and algorithmicity (3). With the term referentiality (1), he refers to practices of constant transformation, combination, and recontextualization of cultural material. Digitally encoded material—within databases, for example—can be recombined and enriched with other material (or data). These processes allow subjects to “inscribe” in cultural processes (Stalder, 2016). We conclude that subjects can participate when they, firstly, know about these interwoven structures and, secondly, can deal with them in a reflective, critical, and creative way. The referentiality Stalder describes fosters communalities (2): There is a need to participate continuously in communication processes and to position oneself in networks. Accordingly, participation in social networks is closely related to processes of subjectivation. Networks make it possible to stabilize meanings, make resources accessible, and generate options for action. Here, the subject experiences orientation (Stalder, 2016). We conclude that subjects need to know how to participate in these communities as social networks and to understand their own position within them. They must also be aware of how to distance themselves from fake news, hate speech, or news overload. Algorithmicity (3) describes the growing importance of the collection and machine-sorting of digital data; in this regard, Stalder (2016) elaborates on the increasing amount of data and the impact of (algorithmic) sorting, ordering, and extraction. A key competence for participation is thus to be aware of the measuring and monitoring of all areas of life, the power of data, and those who generate and “own” them.

These three forms of postdigitality represent the characteristics and conditions of a society in which everyone is faced with these ubiquitous procedures of cultural negotiation processes. The far-reaching contexts and relations of being and—most importantly—participating in a postdigital society become clear. A culture of postdigitality includes everything that is generated, influenced, or prevented by it (Grünberger, 2021). Social action is increasingly embedded in technologies, and the ability to participate in education, social, and cultural life means being critically and reflectively aware of this postdigitality.

The characteristics and conditions of postdigitality described above also concern the role of Higher Educational organizations. The latter are challenged to go beyond a merely functional view of technology to understand it as something that shapes and changes the world. This includes the circumstances of teaching and learning in a postdigital culture, which no longer assumes a predictable mechanism between input and output: collaboration and joint reflection gain importance. Productive and creative approaches to ambiguity are becoming increasingly significant for the debate (Allert & Asmussen, 2017; Allert & Richter, 2016; Verständig, 2020), and participation for students means participation in the university as an institution, including its epistemes (Stalder, 2018).

In this regard, it is worth focusing further on the role of Higher Education within a postdigital society. Firstly, it is obvious that the digitalization of research and teaching has been politically and economically anticipated and is thus a central topic in formalized Higher Education strategies. Stakeholders agree on the fact that digital technologies with their practices should be increasingly integrated into Higher Education. Nevertheless, current research shows that ways of “doing digitization” are determined by the variety of teaching, personal beliefs of teachers, and not least by student heterogeneity. Thus, digital technologies could be understood as an option to shape and foster specific practices of studying. But the outcome is always determined by the way students, teachers, and others working in Higher Education make sense of these circumstances (Hofhues et al., 2020). It is therefore not only challenging for Higher Education organizations to acquire and handle digital technology; it also means understanding, reflecting on, and discussing sociocultural processes of digitalization among all stakeholders and teaching students how to find orientation in these developing social circumstances. For instance, in times of fake news, alternative facts, and information overload, Higher Education organizations offer more than ever a safe space in which to learn to deal competently with information (e.g. Götz-Votteler & Hespers, 2019). In addition, all these phenomena are not only specific challenges in terms of teaching and learning but also influence research itself and not least the role of Higher Education within a postdigital society (Pensel & Hofhues, 2020): “[K] nowledge is increasingly created in multiple ways and by diverse organizations and institutions” (Snellman, 2015, p. 85). Researchers are facing the challenge of sorting, reflecting, and commenting on these developments and knowledge processes. Influenced by digitalization, this happens independently of time and location, and research practices are constantly evolving as a result. This is reflected, for example, in the fact that academic libraries are no longer merely archives of knowledge, but by providing infrastructure and promoting media competencies they also become digitally driven learning environments for researchers, teachers, and learners (Hoebel & Mönnich, 2015; Herrlich, 2014).

As learning and teaching in Higher Education often draw on the old, and at the same time highly relevant, teaching and learning concept of research-based learning, it is obvious that the evolving conditions of research in a postdigital society are influencing study requirements. Humboldt envisioned Higher Education as a scholarly community where the union and overlay of teaching and research should not only support scientific progress but also the mindset students need for self-guided, independent study (Deicke et al., 2014). It is this mindset that students need for learning and participating in a postdigital society.

This connects with the Humboldtian principle of Bildung durch Wissenschaft or “cultivation (Bildung) through knowledge/scholarship” as Zelić (2018, p. 662 [emphasis in original]) puts it. Bildung is a German term and not just the key idea or principle of continental educational tradition but also the “higher” task of (formal) education—such as in Higher Education—and modern pedagogy itself. As there is no exact English translation for this term, the German term is also used in the international literature to a certain extent (Sjöström, 2013). While we cannot explore in detail the discourse and historical development of the concept in the scope of this chapter, we can refer to and work with a simple definition by Vásquez-Levy (2002), who states that “Bildung is the process of developing a critical consciousness and of character-formation, self-discovery, knowledge in the form of contemplation or insight, an engagement with questions of truth, value, and meaning” (p. 118 [italics in original]).

The third section of this chapter therefore focuses on how learning and teaching in Higher Education should be designed to promote the formation of an inquiring mindset as the center of research-based learning and a core aspect of participation in a postdigital society. Bildung durch Wissenschaft—or, deriving from this, research-based learning—is one way to enable students to develop this insight and achieve such participation. Bildung durch Wissenschaft can be achieved when students learn to think and act self-sufficiently, discursively, critically, reflectively, and creatively while actively participating in research(-related) activities.

Research-Based Learning and Participation: The Importance of Research Practices for Teaching in Higher Education

Learning (and teaching) in Higher Education differs from learning in other organizations.Footnote 1 On the one hand, students acquire research-based learning through and about their own research (experiences). Depending on the design of the learning scenario, they retrace, discuss, and practice research processes and their individual steps (Decker & Mucha, 2018; Huber & Reinmann, 2019). Learning and educating oneself through the independent systematic production of knowledge is central to this. On the other hand, independent (research) activities, which are frequently expected of students in research-based learning—planning and carrying out a research process, communicating with others, or researching relevant literature for example—are expected to promote the acquisition of general or key competencies such as communication skills, the use of media, critical and reflexive thinking, or the ability to solve problems and learn independently (Huber, 2009; Huber & Reinmann, 2019). While these outcomes are not guaranteed—as with any other form of learning, they depend on the design of the learning scenario and the students themselves—research-based learning offers corresponding opportunities (Huber, 2009). It is thus—at least conceptually—attributed to both the development of key competencies and the fostering of research-based thinking and acting; in other words, an inquiring mindset is the key goal of Higher Education (Bellmann, 2020; Huber, 2009).

Following the discourse about the benefits of research-based learning (e.g. Lopatto, 2009; Huber, 2009), we suggest that these go beyond the mere training of professional skills. Higher Education needs to be discussed under the conditions of a postdigital knowledge society by taking a closer look at the genuine research practices of networking, reflecting, researching, and organizing, and their interwovenness with the postdigital.

Networking as a Genuine Research Practice

Networking is a central quality of a digital—or postdigital—society (Stalder, 2016). As established above, participation in a postdigital society means learning to take part in (online) communication processes and positioning oneself in networks. Networks are used for orientation, to stabilize meanings, access resources, or take action in different forms and ways (Stalder, 2016).

The academic community has long since formed its own networks. Heffernan (2020) showed in a study that, of 100 academics employed in Higher Education, almost all participated in academic networks in some way. These networks were used for employment opportunities, the identification of publication opportunities, or to inform oneself about current developments in one’s field and so on. Academic networking takes place in the digital world nowadays, via common social networks such as Twitter (e.g. Mahrt et al., 2014) or platforms designed especially for scholarly communication and exchange such as Academia.edu or ResearchGate (s. Ovadia, 2014). Twitter is used to share information, resources, literature, or other media. In sharing publication URLs, the retrieval or promotion of scholarly work can increase (Mahrt et al., 2014).

Sharing work as well as connecting with others in a similar line of interest are central aspects of the research process. In this context, the use of networking platforms such as Twitter for communicating and networking with the academic community can be seen as a research practice. Networking practices via common or disciplinary social media platforms and the consequences arising from this—fake news, hate speech, bias or information overload, for example, as typical social media pitfalls—can be experienced and should be addressed during research-based studies. Students in a postdigital society should know how to participate in social networks, but also need to know how to deal with their consequences. Social media thus gain significance for research (practices), and in this particular context social media platforms such as Twitter, ResearchGate, and Academia.edu can themselves be understood as educational media used for research-based teaching in Higher Education. They therefore require analysis and reflection.

Students are also required to position their own work (a research idea or even their results) within the context of others’ work in their field. They can connect their work with others or distance themselves from popular discourse. In this way, they gain deeper insight into their field and underlying differences and conflicts, but also themselves, their work, and their ideas as researchers. Twitter or other social networks can be seen as (relatively easy) means of connecting with people in the academic context, to gain access to or keep up-to-date with new work and developments in an area of research free of the restrictions imposed by time or space. Participating in networking practices during research-based learning in Higher Education helps students to slowly settle into these practices and associated consequences (see above). Following Stalder (2016), this enables them to acquire the skills necessary to participate in a postdigital society.

In sum, engaging in the research practice of networking and intensive communication during a research project can help students to learn how to navigate within a network as well as to relate to others and position themselves within the field, while at the same time forming their own individuality.

Reflection as a Genuine Research Practice

Bildung is not possible without reflection (Huber & Reinmann, 2019). Nor is research possible without reflection, since the latter can be seen as a fundamental pre-condition for (all) other academic practices. After all, researchers question, challenge, change, and develop existing knowledge, and every step of research practice is based on constant reflection on one’s own approaches as well as those of other researchers. Reflection and reflecting involve not only the researchers themselves but also the academic community, the research object, and the research field. Reflection enables not only research but also a process of learning and (personal) development; (joint) reflection while engaging in research-based learning thus offers the opportunity to be both a researcher and a learner simultaneously (Grüntjens et al., 2022).

While reflection is a crucial part of research, opportunities for it do not arise automatically while conducting research or undergoing research-based learning. Such opportunities require space and must be adequately created (Huber & Reinmann, 2019). The same applies when critically engaging with current conditions, practices, and perceptions in a postdigital society (Knox, 2019; Selwyn et al., 2020).

Digital technologies enable new possibilities to gain insight into the thought, research, and work practices of scholars. Weblogs and e-portfolios are popular examples.Footnote 2 These informal tools allow researchers to reflect openly on their work and to connect with others. In Higher Education, both focus on learning through development and the act of reflection while creating (Farrell, 2020). Students can use them as opportunities to follow up with their own thoughts and reflection processes. In the case of weblogs, social media, or e-portfolios with a community function, it is also possible to interact directly with one another. Thus, when used for a (research) portfolio in Higher Education, they become—despite not having been developed as such—educational media.

In conclusion, when students reflect on research practices, they can simultaneously develop an important key ability for participation in a postdigital society: to deal with and to distance themselves from knowledge reflectively and critically. According to Stalder (2016), a postdigital society is characterized by the interconnectedness of cultural material and structures, power imbalances, and a flood of knowledge and information. This is why it is important to take a step back, become aware of this, and reflect on one’s own thoughts and actions. This requires practices of reflection, which can be acquired via research-based learning.

Researching as a Genuine Research Practice

As already pointed out, digital material is always interwoven and thus referential (Stalder, 2016). Further, nowadays knowledge is created and distributed in numerous ways and by multiple organizations and institutions (Snellman, 2015). Incredible amounts of data are constantly being collected, algorithmically sorted, and extracted, requiring awareness of this as well as of the power dynamics it creates (Stalder, 2016). To participate in a postdigital society, students must know about referentiality, data, and algorithmicity in order to critically question, assess, and sort knowledge. Participation means making informed decisions. When students learn research-based and research-related practices, they also learn to critically engage with referentiality and algorithmicity.

Researching literature is an essential part of every research project. Researchers constantly refer to the work of others. They question other work, build on research results, and situate themselves in the discourse. Researching—in the literal sense—represents the connection of the researcher’s own thinking with the “world of science” and the knowledge that exists in it (Grüntjens et al., 2022). Every researcher and piece of research is thus site-bound in one way or another. Epistemological processes of the global Western cultural area, for example, are based on Western attributions of knowledge, use methodological procedures legitimized there, or refer to spatially limited paradigms (Altenrath, 2023). In other words, academic literature is on the one hand always referential and, on the other hand, embedded in a certain network or disciplinary context.

It is by researching and engaging with literature that students learn about this referentiality and embeddedness. Learning research strategies such as the “snowball system” are not the only way to accomplish this. In this case, the bibliography of a work is searched for corresponding literature and thus, piece by piece, a research field or discourse and important authors and sources in it come to light. Referring back to the aforementioned site-boundness of research and researchers, students should also learn about limitations and bias arising from strategies such as the snowball approach. Citing sources is sometimes far from objective and choosing a reference can be driven by subjective reasons, such as promoting one’s own work (self-citation) or a particular academic network. Literature and studies discovered through the snowball approach are more likely to cite and be cited by other work in the same research area. Both can lead to a literature sample that over-represents certain perspectives or ideas. In consequence, other important work can be overlooked or marginalized, and power dynamics are reproduced. As of today, women and people of color are still underrepresented in certain academic fields; their work may be undervalued or overlooked due to unconscious biases and stereotypes. This can result in fewer citations, among other aspects, leading to a citation bias that reinforces existing gender and racial disparities in academic communities.

Furthermore, as a “classic” introduction to research, students learn the basics of source criticism and verification, such as distinguishing between types of information. This not only helps students to achieve their own research projects but can also be transferred to other (informal) contexts. Knowledge about source criticism or the ability to recognize fake news is indispensable, especially in today’s society with its information surplus.

At the same time—and more specifically in terms of postdigitality—students learn about referentiality but also the preselection of data, or in this case literature, just by dealing with search masks, subject databases, and library systems. Literature, information, and data research opportunities have expanded in recent years due to open-access journals, the increasing online availability of research data and literature, text mining, and citation chasing (Grüntjens et al., 2022). Moreover, as already pointed out, academic libraries are no longer just collections of knowledge but often, also as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, have a broad online service that can be accessed regardless of location or time. Online research skills and literature use are thus becoming increasingly important for students and researchers, who need to know how (academic) library systems work as well as the consequences of using them. Even if access to literature is supposedly easier online, the visibility of (some) publications and authors continues to be restricted by library- and digitization-related indexing procedures or the reach of publishers and so on (Grüntjens & Schaper, 2022).

Library systems are only a limited example of the use and consequences of big data and algorithms. Nevertheless, indexing procedures illustrate the consequences of pre-sorting digital data. Students gain an impression of these procedures while researching literature online, and it is therefore important to consider not only source criticism and how literature can be retrieved but also the consequences of online literature searches. This includes a debate around the providers of websites, search engines, subject databases, and library systems, but also data (and literature) collection and sorting mechanisms.

The development of the Science Citation Index (SCI) in the 1950s constitutes a pertinent example. While legal citation indexes were developed as early as the eighteenth century, the first for scientific literature was established by Eugene Garfield’s Institute for Scientific Information in 1955. The SCI had two main objectives: to identify scientific publications by author and to keep track of where and how often a paper was cited (Garfield, 2007). There were also associated benefits. First, often overlooked connections between publications could be easily tracked. Second, through the use of human–machine indexing methods, indexers no longer needed to be subject specialists. In consequence, citation indexes could be kept up-to-date more easily than subject indexes. Lastly, bibliographic descriptions via citations were less susceptible to scientific and technological outdatedness than the aforementioned subject indexes (Keen, 1964). Even in the early days of citation indexes, questions emerged about the capabilities of computer-automated citation indexing and its consequences (e.g. Garfield, 1965). In the context of these fundamental developments in (automatic) citation indexing, further questions arise: With today’s possibilities of ranking and tracking scientific publications, what do page rank algorithms and key figures such as the h-index (s. Senanayake et al., 2015) say about the scientific impact of research? Who uses this quantified scientific output of researchers? And how do these algorithms, indexes, and other numbers influence the searching and visibility of literature, such as in popular search databases like Google Scholar? This example as well as associated questions and consequences are directly related to our postdigital society.

In sum, learning (literature) research practices in Higher Education can be seen as a first step to introducing students to algorithmic and referential practices in a postdigital society. Students need research practices in order to assess, evaluate, and select knowledge, but also to orientate themselves and to participate in this society.

Organizing as a Genuine Research Practice

During research-based learning, students are faced with the challenge of organizing, managing, and choosing the right tool. But they also have to visualize their personal and institutional context and the next steps in their research process. Being able to choose between different technologies for organizational purposes supports self-regulated learning as well as self-management (Grüntjens et al., 2022). Both abilities are much needed in a postdigital society determined by referentiality.

Following Felix Stalder (2016), the digital and the postdigital are complex cultural spaces defined by non-linearity, simultaneity, and independence from context and time. Furthermore, postdigitality is referential, which means that cultural material, especially when digitally encoded, can be constantly transformed, recontextualized, or recombined (Stalder, 2016). It has been established above that the capacity to orientate oneself within these structures is a prerequisite for other (research) practices such as reflecting, collaborating, or networking, and indeed, orientation also includes self-management and the ability to select what is necessary.

Looking at key research practices, orientation can be supported by practices of organizing. Organizing is important for research in two ways: On the one hand, researchers need to organize their work, for example by scheduling interviews or sorting files and literature. On the other hand, they need—as addressed above in contexts of networking—to organize cooperation with other project stakeholders and partners for the purposes of research projects, for instance (Grüntjens et al., 2022). In a broader sense, this includes finding one’s way and place within the academic community.

It is an inherent characteristic of research processes, however, that they cannot be completely planned. Researchers must structure and organize their work, knowledge, and thinking while remaining able to respond flexibly to the unexpected. Nowadays, digital media play an important role in organizing the work and research processes (Grüntjens et al., 2022). Multiple tools, software, and programs support researchers in arranging appointments, creating a project plan, sorting literature, drawing a mindmap, or taking notes. Some of these are designed especially for academic researchers; others are not.

In sum, using digital media to organize the research process supports students in managing and handling constantly transforming, recontextualized, or recombined data and material. Here, too, even if the digital media used for organizing are not educational media per se, they will become so through their use in Higher Education.

Conclusion: From Academic Practices to Participation

Cultural practices are constantly transforming and are influenced in particular by new forms of referentiality, communality, and algorithmicity. Participation in this postdigitality, in this dynamic and complex cultural space of non-linearity, associative links, simultaneity, or independence of context and time (Stalder, 2016; Cramer, 2014), requires orientation. On the one hand, subjects have to act critically, reflexively, and creatively in a postdigital society in order to participate. On the other hand, the concept of postdigitality allows for a (critical) consideration of current academic practices and the role of Higher Education. We have shown that Higher Education can fulfill its role in enabling students to orientate themselves and participate in the developing social circumstances by teaching and introducing genuine research practices, such as networking, reflecting, researching, and organizing. Nowadays these research practices are always digital media practices too, inextricably interwoven with the postdigital (Pensel & Hofhues, 2020), and we have shown that teaching and learning these research practices is closely related to promoting participation in a postdigital society.

Research-based learning can foster an inquiring mindset and key competencies that are needed to participate in a postdigital society (Bellmann, 2020; Huber, 2009). While Bildung in the Humboldtian sense cannot be enforced, it is commonly believed that it is best facilitated in Higher Education through research-based learning. Furthermore, it is believed that doing and engaging in science provides a strong impetus for self-reflection, which is key to Bildung (Huber 2009, Heudorfer, 2019). In consequence, research-based learning can be seen as a fundamental concept with which to foster Bildung in and for Higher Education. On the one hand, we believe Bildung can be supported through research-based learning on the part of students, the undertaking of academic practices, and their enculturation into science (Langemeyer, 2019) and, on the other, we believe it necessary that research-based learning in higher education be designed in such a way as to reflect (current) academic research practices in a postdigital society (Grüntjens, 2022). Additionally, the transferability of what is learned and achieved to the larger lifeworld can be emphasized in such scenarios, supporting students in transferring academic practices and resulting knowledge to other practices.

Selecting, choosing, and organizing tools, materials, (re)sources, and literature introduces students not only to academic research but also, to a greater extent, to the skills needed to participate in a postdigital society. In doing so, students learn to apply (and reflect on) these practices under assistance and in the “safe space” of teaching and learning without exacerbating existing social inequalities (Steinhardt, 2022), fostering social participation. Digital media thus become educational media. At the same time, this means that perspectives such as those from Critical Educational Technology must be adopted for (critical) debate.

Enabling students to think and act reflexively, critically, and creatively also means taking a closer look at Higher Education organizations and how they might offer students guidance in dealing with simultaneity and constant change. Higher Education itself is also affected by the constant change processes of postdigitality. To what extent does Higher Education consider itself committed to society and to what extent would aspects of postdigitality be included in its program as well as in its structures and its thinking about society? Ultimately, and in line with the principle and the premise of Bildung durch Wissenschaft, we assume that the contents, self-understanding, and structures of Higher Education can support students in thinking and acting self-sufficiently, discursively, critically, reflexively, and creatively. This means that the participation of students depends on the capacity of Higher Education itself to critically question itself and continually develop.