Conclusion and outlook regarding cooperation
This focus report on cooperation has shown that scientists in the Berlin research landscape predominantly rate the ability to cooperate in this area positively. A total of 80% of the respondents rated the ability to collaborate in this area as "somewhat good" (55.1%) or even "very good" (23.8%). Only 20% of the respondents rated the Berlin research area as rather or very badly positioned in this respect. The vast majority also rated their own experience of collaboration positively. Above all, the "central" quality criteria "fulfilment of project goals" and "fulfilment of one’s own goals" were endorsed by 86% and 80% of the scientists surveyed, respectively. Nevertheless, almost one-fifth of the scientists evaluated own collaborations negatively.
The level of cooperation in the Berlin research area is already very high. Cooperation takes place not only in research but also in teaching, product development, and science communication. Nevertheless, the level of cooperation is highest in research: a total of 71% of the scientists stated that they collaborate "often" or even "exclusively” with others in their research. Only 4.5% of the respondents did not collaborate at all in their research, and these were almost exclusively doctoral students.
This high level of cooperation in research does not fundamentally suggest a need for it to be increased. However, half of the respondents want to collaborate more. For the others, the level of collaboration had reached saturation. A small proportion of 1.6% expressed a desire to collaborate less.
The cooperation structures differed remarkably between the subject groups. Since subjects are merely approximations of the underlying and even more differentiated research contexts and subject cultures, these differences indicate that research contexts shape divergent cooperation structures. This is probably appropriate in most cases, so there is no need for steering here with the goal of aligning collaboration levels or structures across subjects.
When comparing status groups with regard to the previously described characteristics of cooperation, specific profiles emerge that differ considerably.
The professors felt a degree of pressure because of the high levels of expectation concerning interdisciplinary collaborations. At the same time, they already collaborated intensively and were therefore less interested in increasing or expanding their level of collaboration. In other words, the saturation point had been reached. Those who would nevertheless like to increase cooperation preferred international collaborations or collaboration in the Berlin research area. Regarding their previous experiences in collaborative relationships, professors evaluated these more positively than predocs and postdocs. In addition, they were comparatively less likely to indicate a need for support in initiating collaborations.
Among predocs, only 10% of the respondents did not collaborate in research. Nevertheless, this was more than among the other status groups. Collaborations among predocs occurred mainly within Germany. The predocs' assessment of their collaborative experiences was more negative than that of the other status groups, especially regarding how successfully they achieved their own goals. Accordingly, predocs also signaled a greater need for support. It can be assumed that support here could also lead to an increase in research collaborations because, despite the low levels of expectations in this group, the desire for additional collaborations was significantly higher among predocs.
In terms of many of the factors considered, postdocs stand exactly between professors and predocs, reflecting their typical roles in the research process and in the professional hierarchy of science. Because postdocs no longer have to conduct their research on their own, their level of collaboration was higher and their need for support was lower than among predocs. Furthermore, they assessed the quality of the collaborations more positively than predocs – especially in terms of the fulfilment of project and personal goals – although not as positively as professors. Given that the desire for further collaborations was also comparatively high among postdocs, it can be assumed that support in initiating collaboration could help to better exploit the existing collaboration potential.
A comparison of subject groups revealed considerable differences, too. The lowest level of collaboration occurred in the humanities, with some respondents even stating that they conducted research exclusively on their own. At the same time, humanities scientists cooperated most frequently with international partners. They also cooperated more frequently with changing partners on a project basis. The desire for additional cooperation was particularly strong here and again related primarily to collaboration with international partners. The need for support was also comparatively high in the humanities. The social scientists, however, expressed the highest need for support. One of the striking features of social science research is the high level of collaboration with organizations and individuals in civil society.
The natural and engineering sciences contrast strongly with the humanities and social sciences. In these two subject groups, the level of cooperation was high and the expressed need for support was low. Engineering scientists received the most requests for collaborations from external partners, and the collaborative relationships were quite stable across projects. Research without collaboration was almost nonexistent in both subject groups. The desire to increase levels of collaboration was, accordingly, rather low. In the engineering sciences, in particular, there was frequent collaboration with companies, making transdisciplinarity most pronounced in this subject. In the engineering sciences compared to the other subjects, it is more often impossible to implement one's own goals in collaborations. While life sciences are similar to the natural and engineering sciences, collaborations in this area are more often instigated by means of own initiative than in the other subject groups. Furthermore, despite an already high level of cooperation, the desire for further cooperation was highest among life scientists, and they were more likely than others to express a need for support in initiating collaborations.
Overall, the comparison of status and subject groups revealed a demand to expand collaborative relationships in the life sciences and humanities. This was particularly high among non-doctoral scientists. This group also expressed a greater need for support in initiating research collaborations.
To conclude, the Berlin research area is well positioned regarding research collaboration. Accordingly, there is no acute need for action. There is certainly no need to increase the general level of collaboration across the board. Rather, planning measures to increase the potential for collaboration should be differentiated and based on the assessments of the scientists, supporting their wishes in a targeted manner. In particular, there is a need to support young scientists who have little experience and cannot fall back on an already established collaboration network. Here, support in initiating collaborations can be very helpful. Furthermore, support services, e.g., on collaboration management or self-assertion in collaborations, could also be useful means for improving the quality of collaborative relationships.