Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin - English

Knowledge transfer encompasses not only scientific communication, but all forms of knowledge exchange between science and various social groups. Such an exchange can occur in different phases of the research process. Thus, knowledge transfer does not have to be understood as a one-way process from science to society, but can flow in both directions, such that both sides stimulate and enrich each other.

To quantify the potential for knowledge transfer, the Berlin Science Survey looked at the perspectives of researchers and asked them for which areas of society they consider their own research to be relevant. The results show that 88% of respondents consider their research to be "fairly" or "very relevant" for at least one area of society (politics, citizens, business, practitioners, art/culture, media, economy). The other 12% consider their research to be "hardly relevant" or "not at all relevant" for any of the seven areas surveyed. These are predominantly respondents who conduct basic research.

However, different disciplines have very different profiles and therefore different transfer potentials. For example, the transfer profile of the humanities and social sciences is geared more towards civil society and politics, that of the life sciences more towards practitioners (e.g. in medical clinics) and that of engineering more towards companies from industry.

The transfer potential is to a large extent already realized. Of all respondents, 73% are in contact with at least one social group; 54% are even in contact with two or more groups. Only 27% are not in contact with any of these groups at all.

An actual exchange takes place most frequently when practitioners (e.g. medical professionals, technicians and teachers) constitute      the relevant reference group: of the respondents who consider their own research to be relevant to the group of practitioners, 78% state that knowledge transfer also takes place with this group. For the arts and culture relevance group, this proportion is 64%, for business it is 66% and for civil society 68%.

The intensity of exchange relationships can be classified according to the points in the research process at which the exchange occurs. Exchange during the research process - and not exclusively afterwards - is an indicator of more intensive exchange. Of the scientists practicing knowledge transfer, 91% state that they are already in contact with relevant groups before or during the research process. The remaining 9% only engage in non-scientific exchange after completing their research.

The exchange often already takes place during the development of the research question. This is particularly common in exchanges with partners from the business world (61%) and with practitioners (51%). However, the exchange of knowledge with politics, civil society institutions or art & culture also takes place at this early stage in around a third of cases. 

Overall, many scientists in the Berlin research area are in contact with social actors outside of academia. There can be no talk of research in an ivory tower here.

Berlin research area & need for support

The majority rate the transfer of knowledge in the Berlin Research Area positively. In terms of knowledge transfer, 45% rate the Berlin Research Area as "fairly well" and 9% as "very well" positioned. On the other hand, a not insignificant minority of 27.3% of respondents consider the Berlin Research Area to be "rather poorly" or even "very poorly" positioned in this respect.

Younger researchers are significantly more likely than more established researchers to claim a need for support in dealing with knowledge transfer. Broken down by status group, 37% of professors, 45% of postdocs and 50% of predocs state a need for support. As expected, the need for support decreases with increasing experience.

Overall, the stated need for support is surprisingly high given the extensive transfer practice that already exists. This indicates that, on the one hand, scientists attach great importance to the topic of knowledge transfer, but at the same time are unable or unwilling to tackle it alone. In fact, the need for support is somewhat more pronounced among those who attach greater importance to knowledge transfer to society. Here it is important that the institutions also take responsibility for the topic so that the entire burden of implementing knowledge transfer does not rest on the shoulders of the individuals.

Attitudes towards the relationship between science and society

The overwhelming majority of respondents (83%) believe that scientists should actively participate in public debates. However, 63% of respondents believe that they should limit themselves to making statements about their own research. Just under 28%, on the other hand, believe that scientists should also contribute to public debates beyond this. This shows that scientists consider it necessary to contribute scientific expertise to social discourse, but less in the sense of public intellectuals who comment on many things, and always with clear reference to the knowledge they have produced themselves.

The importance of scientific autonomy is controversial in the scientific community: While 45% are (rather) in favor of autonomy vis-à-vis society, only slightly fewer respondents (39%) are inclined to say that science should serve society. The remaining respondents take a neutral position here.

These "positionings" depend to a large extent on the respective research subject. In particular, scientists who work more theoretically themselves, but also those who are dependent on technical infrastructures, are more in favor of the autonomy of science than scientists from other research contexts. Humanities scholars are in favor of greater autonomy, while engineering scholars are less reluctant to put science at the service of society. In addition, professors are more in favor of maintaining a high degree of autonomy compared to postdocs and predocs.

The following implications for higher education policy can be derived from these results:

Knowledge transfer is already very much a part of everyday research. Based on the status quo, an increase in knowledge transfer activities by individual researchers is not necessarily to be expected, nor is it sensible or expedient everywhere. The knowledge transfer potential and the respective target group for the transfer strongly depend on the respective subject and the specific research context. Especially for scientists in basic research, the topic of knowledge transfer tends to be of secondary importance.

Overall, there is a considerable need among scientists for support in order to fulfill the desire for knowledge transfer. Support services offered by the institutions could help to make better use of the potential for knowledge transfer.