In recent years, various policy documents and funding guidelines have been published by political institutions that contribute to the international and German discourse. In these documents, media education is not only explicitly addressed, the papers also open up a "new mode (in) of knowledge production" (Gibbons/Limoges/Nowotny 1995) in this field. This means, that the opening of science to social demands on science is becoming more relevant. Furthermore, a general development of universities towards entrepreneurial universities can be observed in Germany (Hofhues 2020). At the same time, disciplines such as media education and science-related organizations face the challenge of developing profiles towards other fields of (higher) education (Niesyto 2017). Furthermore, disciplines are orienting themselves inter- and transdisciplinarily. Thus, since its genesis, empirically oriented media education has discussed a broad spectrum of theoretical and methodological approaches and reflected critically on its subjects. In addition, media education made methodological diversity, appropriateness and openness part of the developments of its professionalization process. Questions arise that affect the academic system as well as media education as a science of action and reflection. It needs to be clarified whether and how the discipline-related interest in knowledge can be pursued in a changed scientific environment and whether media education is represented as diversified and rich in theoretical, conceptual and empirical approaches in current funding programs. This fact concerns also the international perspective. Thus, German scientist in the field of general education, Norbert Ricken anticipated a momentous change for general educational research and criticized a “heteronomous organization of science on the basis of external incentives, controls and sanctions” (Ricken 2009, 198). This contribution is concerned with the prerogative of interpretation in relation to digitization and education in the programmes and funding guidelines of Germany and the EU that has been created by political discourse and power. It is based on the assumption that the research and science system has for some time been closely dependent on funding programmes, which (should) function at different political levels as so-called funding instruments of various educational sectors and of science itself. On the basis of empirical observation, this turning towards and simultaneous rejection of terms and concepts as well as dynamics of interpretational sovereignty can be made visible – not only in connection with discourses on digitization and education (Altenrath/Helbig/Hofhues 2020).

Altenrath, M.; Helbig, C. & Hofhues, S. (forthcoming). Deutungshoheiten. Digitalisierung und Bildung in Programmatiken und Förderrichtlinien Deutschlands und der EU. In Rummler, K. et al. (Eds.), Lernen mit und über Medien in einer digitalen Welt. MedienPädagogik 37, https://www.medienpaed.com/issues (manuscript submitted for publication). Gibbons, Michael; Limoges, Camille & Nowotny, Helga (1995). The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. Hofhues, S. (2020). Open Science, Open Education und offene Bildungsressourcen – Openness in der Sozialen Arbeit. In N. Kutscher, T. Ley, U. Seelmeyer, F. Siller, A. Tillmann & I. Zorn (Eds.), Handbuch Soziale Arbeit und Digitalisierung (pp. 167-178). Weinheim: Beltz. Niesyto, H. (2017). Medienpädagogik und digitaler Kapitalismus. Für eine Stärkung einer gesellschafts- und medienkritischen Perspektive. In S. Kommer, T. Junge, und C. Rust (Eds.), Spannungsfelder und blinde Flecken. Medienpädagogik zwischen Emanzipationsanspruch und Diskursvermeidung (pp. 1-29). MedienPädagogik 27, https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/27/2017.01.13.X. Ricken, N. (2009). Elite und Exzellenz – Machttheoretische Analysen zum neueren Wissenschaftsdiskurs. In Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 55/2009 (pp. 194-210).