Summary of results regarding cooperation
The Berlin Science Survey (BSS) project investigates the change in research culture and research practices in the Berlin research landscape from the perspective of science research. The focus of this report is based on the BSS data from a 2021–22 pilot study and is dedicated to the collaborative relationships of scientists in the Berlin research landscape. The focus of the evaluation was on collaborative structures, the development potential of collaborations, and the quality of existing collaborative relationships. In particular, differences between status groups, between subject groups, and, where relevant, also between gender groups were highlighted and discussed for all sub-topics.
The central findings were:
1) The Berlin Research Landscape is valued for its cooperation opportunities. Some 70% of the respondents rated the ability to cooperate as "somewhat good" or even "very good".
2) The level of cooperation was very high. A total of 95% of the respondents stated that they cooperated in their research. In addition, collaboration also took place in teaching, science communication, and product development. Nevertheless, more than one-third of respondents felt a high level of pressure regarding the expectations of interdisciplinary collaborations.
3) Overall, cooperation most frequently took place with partners from other universities. Humanities scholars and social scientists cooperated more frequently than other disciplines with external partners from civil society, while engineering scholars cooperated particularly with companies.
4) Professors cooperated most frequently with external partners from abroad (84%), while postdocs and predocs cooperated more with partners in Germany (excluding Berlin). Scientists from the humanities also worked on projects more with partners abroad than other subject groups.
5) Four-fifths of the respondents cooperated regularly with colleagues from their own disciplines (80.7%), while almost 50% worked regularly on an interdisciplinary basis and 18.5% also on a transdisciplinary basis. At 31%, transdisciplinarity was particularly pronounced in the engineering sciences and was mainly due to corporate collaborations.
6) Regarding the structure of the collaborative relationships, about one third of the respondents stated that their collaborative relationships tended to be stable, i.e., they worked with the same partners over several projects, while two-thirds changed their partners more frequently. In the case of engineering scientists and natural scientists, collaborative relationships were more likely to last over several projects. At the same time, partnerships in these subjects also occurred somewhat more frequently than in the other subject groups as a result of requests from external parties.
7) Reflecting on their own experiences, the scientists described the quality of their collaborative relationships as predominantly good. Only very few respondents rated the "hard" conditions for success, namely "fulfilment of project goals" and "fulfilment of own goals", as poorly realized. Difficulties were most likely to be found in the following aspects: “the functioning division of labour”, “the fair distribution of funds and resources”, and “the integration of different work styles”. Predocs assessed the value of their collaborative relationships lower than postdocs in all areas. By contrast, professors assessed the value of such relationships the highest. The evaluation differences between the status groups were particularly notable regarding the aspects of “the functioning division of labour” and “the fair distribution of funds and resources”.
8) The potential for cooperation in the Berlin research landscape has not yet been reached. About 48% of all respondents stated that they would like to engage in additional collaborative projects. Conversely, just under 52% of respondents were satisfied with their level of cooperation or wanted to reduce it. This shows that the desire for additional cooperation decreases with increasing status. Among professors, the saturation point had already been reached, while postdocs and, above all predocs, wished to have more collaborative opportunities. This wish was the strongest among scientists in life science and the humanities.
9) Some 39% of scientists in the Berlin research landscape needed support in initiating collaborative relationships. Predocs had the greatest need for support.
From these results, the following implications for university policy can be derived:
Collaborations are already part of everyday research. Based on the current situation, it is not necessary to increase the amount of collaboration across the board. At the level of professorships, in particular, the saturation point has already been reached in many areas. By contrast, at pre-and post-doctoral levels, there was a stronger desire for collaborations, especially in the area of international research. We therefore see more potential for collaborative expansion in these groups. At the same time, predocs have a particular need for support, not least in order to overcome the difficulties currently encountered in instigating collaborations. Support services, for example in initiating and structuring cooperations, could help make better use of the collaborative potential of this group.
The mixture of saturation on the one hand and perceived pressure to cooperate on the other is interesting. It is striking that not only those who have cooperated little so far want to cooperate more, but also some of those who currently have a high level of cooperation. However, there is a risk here that increased collaboration will lead to a reduction of quality.